Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SEVERN-TRENT WATER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Poverty (Statistics)

Mr. Anderw F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now estimate the number of people living in poverty.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): There is no generally accepted definition of poverty on which such an estimate could be made.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that there seems to be no end to the Government's enthusiasm to extend poverty? Not only are they failing to uprate benefits in line with inflation by about 1 to 1·5 per cent., but they are extending the number of people who are having to draw social security because they are unemployed, and in addition they are proposing to put up fuel charges next spring by 5 per cent., which is an extra 2 per cent. on the amount allowed for in the uprating.

Dr. Boyson: The uprating that will take place next Monday is in line with inflation, where it is not in advance of inflation. The uprating in child benefit, unemployment benefit and other benefits is in advance of inflation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the higher we raise supplementary benefits, the more people can claim to be in poverty.

Mr. John Townend: Does my hon. Friend agree that young people without permanent accommodation in London, who, according to recent reports in the press, are receiving over £100 a week in social security benefits, are not living in poverty?

Dr. Boyson: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the cheap sneer of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), is the Minister aware that those living on small incomes will be seriously harmed by the proposed increases in gas and electricity prices? Is he further aware that those who do not receive supplementary benefit but are eligible for rent or rate rebates do not receive a penny piece to assist them with their fuel bills in the winter months?

Dr. Boyson: Fuel costs paid as part of supplementary benefits have over the years increased at a rate higher than

the increase in the cost of fuel. Those who are not on supplementary benefit receive the pension in the round and are responsible for the expenditure of that money. One cannot adjust 100 different inputs to every expenditure.

Mr. Winnick: That is a disgraceful answer.

Mr. John: When the star chamber reached the decision to raise gas and fuel prices, was the Minister asked to estimate the effect on the budget of a social security beneficiary? If so, what was his estimate? If not, does that not show the contempt in which the aptly named star chamber holds the poor?

Dr. Boyson: I was not present at the meeting to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and today would be the wrong time to refer to public spending, as a statement will be made on Thursday.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister failed to mention housing benefit in his run round the benefits that may be changed. Is that because this week there will be a further imposition on those receiving housing benefit and that that will increase poverty?

Dr. Boyson: As I said, a statement on public expenditure will be made on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman is present, he will find out what is to happen.

Mr. Frank Field: The Minister may not accept that there is a common definition for poverty, but does he accept that everybody else does? The recently released figures from the family expenditure survey show a 40 per cent. increase in the numbers on low incomes. Does the Minister accept that that is a direct result of the Government's policy? If not, who or what is responsible for kicking down towards the bottom end of our society an extra 4·5 million people in the first two years of Tory rule?

Dr. Boyson: In 1976, under the Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the then Minister for Social Security, said:
Poverty is a relative matter, and the Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 October 1976; Vol. 918, c. 255.]
Similarly, in 1978 the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:
The Government do not accept that a simple poverty line can be drawn."—[Official Report, 26 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 766.]
The hon. Gentleman referred to 4·5 million unemployed. There has been an increase in long-term unemployment, which is wanted by no one on either side of the Chamber, and that has led to an increase in supplementary benefit. I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely worried about this matter. The value of supplementary benefit is higher in real terms than when we came into power.

National Health Service (Staff)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services by how much have staff numbers in the National Health Service changed since 1978; and if he will make a statement relating this to his Department's current manpower policy.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): The number of directly employed staff in the National Health Service in England increased by


about 69,000 between September 1978 and September 1982 to a total of 828,000. The increase was predominantly among those directly involved in patient care, particularly doctors, nurses and professional and technical staff. Following talks with regional health authorities I have asked for a reduction of 4,800 posts by March 1984—that is a reduction of 0·5 per cent.

Mr. Adley: In the light of that spectacular increase in job numbers, will my right hon. Friend accept that the only criticism of him that is perhaps justified is that he has allowed himself to be painted as a butcher when his record on jobs shows that he is more like a Santa Claus? Do not these figures show that the Opposition's argument on jobs reductions is a hollow sham? Does not my right hon. Friend have a duty to the taxpayer to attempt to control the growth of his huge empire?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his discerning description of me. It is probably better to be portrayed as a cutter than as a trimmer. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that resources for the National Health Service have increased substantially under this Government. In our period in office, front-line staff numbers, especially nurses, have increased substantially.

Mr. Ashley: In the light of the spectacular cuts that have been announced by a ministerial butcher who dresses up as a Santa Claus with no beard, will the Secretary of State recognise that the cuts are a gross interference in the rights of health authorities to manage their own affairs? Will he take steps to ensure that deprived districts, such as north Staffordshire, suffer no cuts, because they cannot afford any more?

Mr. Fowler: I do not believe that anyone can reasonably portray a reduction of 4,800 posts—0·5 per cent.—as spectacular. This reduction does not add up to that description. The Government had to intervene because health authorities were planning not to reduce or to stabilise manpower, but to increase numbers by 7,000, predominantly among administrative or ancillary staff, not nurses and doctors. In those circumstances, it was right for the Government to intervene.

Mrs. Currie: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving £64 million in administrative costs by the abolition of the area health authorities, as reported in Hansard yesterday. Does he agree that the 100,000-plus administrators in the Health Service, which works out at one administrator to every seven other staff, is too high, especially in the Trent region, which covers my constituency?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend, who has long experience in the Health Service and as a health authority chairman, is correct. I hope that health authorities will have noted that the Government would like the reduction in posts to be geared more towards the administrative tail of the Health Service than to nurses and doctors.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that these manpower cuts are manifestly arbitrary and damaging to clinical care when there are already more than 3,000 doctors and 8,000 nurses and midwives on the dole? Will he tell the House what legal powers he has to enforce these cuts where health authorities are not breaking their cash limits? Is it not shameful that many

authorities should be required to dismiss regular nursing staff and then be allowed to take on the same number of agency nurses the next day?

Mr. Fowler: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as Opposition spokesman on social services. All his statements are factually incorrect. First, there is no evidence of doctor or nurse redundancies. Secondly, there is evidence that the regional chairmen have accepted the targets and will work towards them. Therefore, there is no question of their being forced to break their cash limits. Thirdly, the reductions are not arbitrary. They have been carefully worked out to reduce manpower by 0·5 per cent. after careful talks with every regional health authority.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for shorter supplementary questions and answers.

One-parent Benefit

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive one-parent benefit are receiving it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): The latest estimate available shows that about 70 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming one-parent benefit are receiving it.

Mr. Knox: This figure represents a considerable improvement since the Government came into office, but it is still not completely satisfactory. Has my hon. Friend any plans for further steps to improve the take-up of one-parent benefit?

Mr. Newton: I accept that the number is not as high as we would like, and we are continuing to look for ways to increase it. Recently, we introduced a new poster for display in each of the relevant areas. This year we are experimenting with different ways of promoting take-up in different parts of the country—television, radio and magazines—with a view to assessing the most effective way of making further progress.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister consider making an early statement on the outstanding recommendations of the Finer committee in a report that was produced almost 10 years ago?

Mr. Newton: A large number of the recommendations in the Finer report were for Departments other than the DHSS. I note the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to encourage management recognition of the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel for industrial relations purposes.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Individual health authorities are free to recognise the association locally, and I have encouraged several to do so. We have also authorised a number of authorities, where the association has a significant membership to grant the facility under which members' contributions to the association are deducted at source.

Mr. Atkins: In the light of my hon. and learned Friend's advice to health authorities to recognise the


Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel and Lancashire's refusal to do so, even though more than 50 per cent. of ambulance personnel are members of APAP, what will he do to rectify this disgraceful anomaly in Lancashire?

Mr. Clarke: I have given the advice to the district chairmen. The chairman in question is one of those to whom I have written. I hope that he will reflect on the fact that the Government's view is that the ambulance men should determine by which union or association they wish to be represented. We expect health authorities to recognise the associations that plainly have the support of their employees.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions in my area are fighting against cuts in ambulance services? The Secretary of State has talked about 0·5 per cent. cuts. In view of those cuts, will the Minister examine the proposals of the Northumbria ambulance service where there are proposed cuts of 20 per cent.? Such cuts will leave patients in my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about recognition, not cuts.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recognise that legitimate trade unions are reducing the emergency cover for my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), but I will not allow the people I represent to suffer — [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout as much as they like.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is sufficient.

Mr. Clarke: We have asked health authorities to cut spending only on unnecessary services, to release resources for priority patient care. We expect local health authorities to recognise those unions and associations chosen by the employees to represent them.

Pension Schemes (Equity Benefits)

Mr. Viggers: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further steps he now proposes to encourage those responsible for pension schemes to improve the equity of benefits between participants in their schemes.

Sir Peter Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what measures he is proposing to ease the problems for early leavers in occupational pension schemes.

Mr. Fowler: Following the report of the Occupational Pensions Board on the problems of the early leaver from pension schemes, I consulted closely all major interests and in September held a one-day conference on this subject. I hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Viggers: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on identifying the problems in this area and on the initiatives that he took to promote discussion. Does he agree that the early leaver is only part of the issue and that we should seek to provide portability of pensions, which would carry many substantial benefits?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. Action on early leavers does not in any way preclude action being taken on personal portable pensions. There is

a great attraction in principle in personal portable pensions, and I shall have something further to say about that.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem has a severe effect on employees and does not help flexibility of employment or the economy? I know that he has made progress, but will he redouble his efforts to further this cause which is so important to employees?

Mr. Fowler: I have no doubt that many staff feel strongly about this problem. Voluntary action has not been sufficient, and I believe that the Government have a duty to remedy this injustice.

Sir Hugh Rossi: When can we expect a Government response to the Select Committee report on equality of retirement age for men and women, as it will have an effect on the future of occupational pensions?

Mr. Fowler: It will plainly have some effect. I am not sure that it arises from this question, but there w ill be a response shortly.

Mr. Meacher: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the only proper answer to the problem of the early leaver is full indexation of a frozen pension, which should not be at the expense of cutting other members' benefits? If that cannot be done, does it not illustrate that private occupational pension schemes, as opposed to the state scheme, suffer from the overwhelming defect that they cannot cope properly during a period of inflation?

Mr. Fowler: I shall shortly be making a statement on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman felt so strongly about this subject, I am surprised that he did not do something about it when he was a Minister at the DHSS.

Hospital Closures (London)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many hospitals in the London area have been closed during the last four years; and how many are currently under threat of closure.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Since May 1979, 29 hospitals in Greater London have been approved for closure. Formal closure proposals have been made, but not yet approved, in respect of a further 14. These figures do not include temporary closures.

Mr. Dubs: Is the Minister aware that his recent decision to close the south London hospital for women is bitterly resented in my constituency and adjoining areas? Is not the only conclusion to be drawn from the answer that he has just given that there will be further hospital closures in London and that we may well be left with only one teaching hospital in each London district health authority area?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the south London hospital for women decision was difficult because of the unique service being provided there by women to women patients. The closure will release £5 million, which will pave the way for the next phase of the new St. George's teaching hospital, Tooting. In the short-term, it will allow much needed improvements to be made in the care of the mentally ill in that district, particularly at the Springfield hospital.

Mr. Jessel: Where greatly valued local community hospitals are under threat, such as those at Teddington and


Twickenham in my constituency, following the recommendations in the Griffiths report, if a district health authority owns valuable under-used tracts of land, could they not be sold or leased to raise funds so that closures could be reconsidered?

Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says. It is important that we release surplus land at the proper value because it can provide money for health authorities to devote to patient services. We believe that the new management will give high priority to the disposal of surplus land and the better management of estates in use.

Mr. Simon Hughes: How many temporarily closed hospitals are there in London in addition to the closures that the Minister has mentioned? Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that none of the temporary closures will prejudice the ultimate decision as to whether the hospitals remain open?

Mr. Clarke: I require notice to give an exact figure of how many hospitals are temporarily closed. Temporary closure means just that. If people wish to make permanent decisions, they have to go through the consultation procedure. If there is any controversy, they then come to Ministers for decisions. Ministers will approve closures only where they are satisfied that they are in the interests of the authority and patient services and are the best way to make necessary economies to provide better health services elsewhere.

Mr. Higgins: Does my hon. and learned Friend accept that those who represent districts which are underfunded on the RAWP formula and in regions which are overfunded, including parts of London, believe that a fairer distribution of resources is important?

Mr. Clarke: No doubt my right hon. Friend's constituents and many others in areas surrounding London regard some of the campaigns going on in London to try to preserve surplus out-of-date hospitals as contrary to the interests of patients in areas such as his, which are underprovided, because the population has increased or because they are historically deprived.

Ms. Richardson: Does the Minister realise that the south London hospital for women occupies a special place in London and is not rundown and outdated? Does he recognise that women throughout London are enraged at the proposal to close the hospital? They see it as a reduction in their right to be treated in that hospital which, as has been pointed out, is run by women for women.

Mr. Clarke: The south London hospital for women was potentially surplus because it is in an already well provided area which is to have a new teaching hospital at Tooting. Some of those campaigning for the south London hospital for women put it to me that the logical alternative was not to proceed with the next phase of St. George's. That would be unpopular in Tooting, Clapham and Wandsworth, which are the areas affected. We have received an assurance from the authority that women patients who wish to have treatment from other women will, in all cases where it is possible, be offered such treatment, particularly in gynaecology, obstetrics and so on, about which many women feel strongly.

North-East Thames Regional Health Authority

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the North-East Thames regional health authority concerning manpower cuts.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): The North-East Thames regional health authority wrote to the Department on 31 August setting out its response to the indicative figures issued at the end of July. I met the chairman of the authority on 27 September to discuss the final target for the region.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister confirm that in the Dagenham health district the cuts amount to more than three times 0·5 per cent.? Will he also confirm that the district health authority could have met his financial targets without the imposed manpower cuts? Is he aware that the imposed cuts will mean closed wards, fewer nurses, the impossibility of pursuing specialist subjects in Oldchurch hospital and a lower level of patient care?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions. The responsibility for the distribution of manpower targets within the North-East Thames regional health authority is a matter for that health authority. There is no evidence that patient services will suffer as a result of the manpower indicative figures that have been given.

Mr. Eggar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the implementation of the Griffiths proposals, coupled with the contracting out of services, will make it relatively easy for that authority to comply with the manpower targets?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is correct. We want health authorities to address themselves first and foremost to tackling difficult manpower problems rather than turning, as is all too easy, to cutting services, slackening estate maintenance and not re-ordering new equipment as they should.

Seasonal Workers (Benefit)

Mr. McQuarrie: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why seasonal workers who cannot obtain employment in their off-season are not entitled to supplementary benefit.

Dr. Boyson: A seasonal worker is not specifically barred from receiving supplementary benefit during his off-season, but the level of his earnings in the on-season, if they are sufficiently high, may exclude him from supplementary benefit in the off-season.

Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that seasonal workers who are paid only during the season are unable to obtain unemployment benefit when they sign on? They also receive inadequate supplementary benefit. When a seasonal worker applies for supplementary benefit, why is he unable to receive adequate financial resources to give him a living wage?

Dr. Boyson: If in the on-season the worker is allowed to earn two and a half times the level of supplementary benefit or three times that of the single householder, that figure is not taken into account when assessing his off-season entitlement. Anything above that figure is carried forward and then divided by the number of weeks in the off-season, including the £4 that the claimant is allowed


to earn. I am sure that my hon. Friend follows my argument. Provided that the claimant has not earned a lot of money in the on-season, he will be entitled to supplementary benefit in the off-season.

Mr. Ashton: Why does the definition of off-season vary from area to area?

Dr. Boyson: The definition varies from area to area because it depends upon whether, for example, agricultural fisheries or tourist workers are involved. The season is different for each.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that some of those affected work for Government agencies?

Dr. Boyson: I am not sure what the hon. Member means. If he will write to me, my Department will check the details.

Griffiths Report

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations he has held with interested parties on the implementation of the recommendations proposed in the Griffiths report.

Mr. Galley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what specific steps he is planning to take to implement the recommendations of the Griffiths report.

Mr. Fowler: As I told the House on 25 October, I am committed to improving management in the NHS and I believe that the Griffiths report has made important proposals to achieve this. I am about to consult health authorities, professional staff and other bodies on the report. In the meantime, I intend to take action within the Department to implement the report's proposals.
I am pleased that Mr. Griffiths has agreed to join the supervisory board as a non-executive member.

Mr. Favell: Is the Secretary of State confident that interested parties will accept the implementation of the Griffiths report, thus releasing funds patient care, which is what the NHS is all about?

Mr. Fowler: The objectives of the Griffiths report have been widely accepted, not only in the National Health Service but outside. The aim of the consultation period is to get the exact views of the NHS on how the proposals should be implemented.

Mr. Galley: Although my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on his positive response to the Griffiths report, does he accept that the establishment of management and supervisory bodies will not, by themselves, improve the quality of management within the NHS? Has my right hon. Friend any further proposals to establish management by objective, individual management responsibilities and personnel appraisement policies in the near future? To what time scale is he working? Is he prepared to develop the ideas as soon as possible?

Mr. Fowler: We are prepared to develop as quickly as possible all ideas that improve the management of the NHS. We wish to establish the supervisory board and the management board within the Department. At the same time, we intend appointing general managers at regional, district and unit levels. The other points raised by my hon. Friend must also be considered.

Mrs. Renée Short: I can tell those hon. Members who have not read the Griffiths report that it is a good blueprint

for running a grocery chain, but not the marvellous network of hospitals within the NHS. I understand that the Secretary of State intends consulting the medical profession about the Griffiths report. Does he intend giving the House an opportunity to express its views on the report?

Mr. Fowler: The last matter raised by the hon. Lady was fair, and I shall consider it. Her first point has no validity whatsoever. The differences between running a business and the NHS are great, but there are also great similarities. Above all, both are trying to provide the best possible service to the public at the least cost. I should have thought that the hon. Lady, who is committed to the NHS, would welcome a report that aims at better management of the service.

Mr. Crouch: I welcome the move from consensus management to the introduction of managers in the health authorities, but will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the continuing importance of consultation by managers with the specialists involved in the Health Service, be they medical specialists or those in more junior posts?

Mr. Fowler: There is no question about that. At all levels, that will be the case.

Mr. Kennedy: Given the deep concern exemplified by the NHS and by the response that Mr. Griffiths received recently from the Royal College of Nursing, will the Secretary of State, before proceeding with the recommendations in the report, reconsider the possibility of regional pilot schemes to examine whether the recommendations will work at a practical level?

Mr. Fowler: There are some pilot schemes concerned with management budgets. I shall give the hon. Gentleman details about them. The case for going forward and seeking a better management structure in the Health Service without undergoing the extensive reorganisation that has taken place in the past is, however, overwhelming.

Mr. Meacher: Are not the Griffiths proposals aimed not at improving efficiency but at facilitating further cuts in the Health Service? Is not that the reason why the Government changed their earlier view that the chief executive idea would be incompatible with the professional independence of hospital staff? Will the Secretary of State reconsider the outrageous decision to exclude the chief nursing officer from the advisory board, as nurses constitute half of the staff employed in the NHS?

Mr. Fowler: No final decision has been made about the last matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, unlike his predecessor, will accept that the Griffiths report, like Mr. Roy Griffiths himself, is entirely dedicated to trying to improve the NHS. I urge the Opposition to try to aim for a modern Health Service, which is what the Government are trying to achieve.

Private Hospital Beds

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the number of private hospital beds in 1979, in comparison with the last available figures for 1983.

Mr. John Patten: I regret that no information is available for 1979. There are approximately 34,500 beds in the independent sector now, more than three quarters of which are in nursing homes.

Mr. Fatchett: To what extent are those private beds subsidised by the taxpayer? Is it not a moral outrage that, at a time when Leeds eastern and Leeds western health districts are being forced to cut jobs and services, the proposed private hospital at Methley near Leeds should be subsidised by the Government's business expansion scheme?

Mr. Patten: No subsidy is paid by the taxpayer to support private medicine. The funding of one of the two new hospitals in Leeds to which the hon. Gentleman referred is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not for me.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in private beds reflect the fact that many more people are joining health insurance schemes and that a further contributory factor is the fact that many trade unionists are joining private health schemes?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure he will agree that we wish to see throughout the country more examples of co-operation between health authorities in the private sector in providing joint developments for the benefit of patients in both schemes.

Mr. Barron: Bearing in mind the answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), is the Minister aware that private hospitals are used to carry out operations and patients are then transferred to NHS hospitals for post-operative care? Is not that an area in which the NHS is subsidising private medicine?

Mr. Patten: No—far from it. More than £50 million comes to the NHS through that system.

Mr. Dobson: Now that private hospitals and private health insurance companies are finding it difficult to make profits, will the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer resist the importuning and bleating of the private sector for more subsidies from the taxpayer, in addition to the tax concessions that it has already received, the business start-up scheme that it has exploited, the changes in consultants' contracts, the way in which private hospitals are parasites on neighbouring NHS hospitals and the scandalous changes introduced by the Government in the disposal of surplus NHS land to private hospitals?

Mr. Patten: There seem to be about seven separate questions there. In the past four years there has been an increase of some 3,000 beds in the private sector and a further 800 are being built. Those beds increase the availability of health care in this country. They do not decrease it. We welcome the co-operation between the public and private sectors in this context.

New Hospital Beds

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many new hospital beds are currently unused.

Mr. John Patten: The information requested is not collected routinely but a special inquiry in March 1982 identified 934 beds awaiting opening at seven hospitals through lack of funds. The latest available information, in April 1983, shows that the number of unopened beds has been reduced to 791 at six of those hospitals.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is it not a disgrace that so many beds in new wards remain unused when hundreds of thousands of patients are waiting in distress and dying in agony on the waiting list? Would it not be more sensible to take action to match those new beds with the unemployed nurses and doctors to reduce the waiting list and the waiting time rather than increasing them by imposing further cuts on the Health Service as the Government propose?

Mr. Patten: Some of the problems result from bad decisions on capital and revenue planning. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was determined to put that right so that those problems would no longer arise. The hon. Gentleman should consider the triumphant way in which the NHS in recent years has increased its productivity by treating 500,000 more patients per year in roughly the same number of beds. The waiting lists would be much shorter if there had not been industrial action in 1982.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that there was nothing wrong with the planning of the Glenfield district hospital in my constituency, but that everything wrong with the Government's policy, which is preventing that hospital from opening and resulting in a great deal of expenditure on mothballing? When will that hospital open? How long must my constituents wait for the hospital beds they so desperately need?

Mr. Patten: That is a matter for the regional health authority, but waiting lists throughout the country are becoming shorter and it will not be long before they return to the level before last year's industrial action.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that thousands of middle-aged and elderly people with detached retinas are waiting to use those hospital beds? Why will he not allow them to do so?

Mr. Patten: The disposition of resources for the treatment of individual specialties such as the optical matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are matters for the regional health authorities and their constituent district health authorities.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that in some district general hospitals, including those in Leeds, different wards are closed from week to week, thus obscuring the real number of unused beds? Will he draw attention to that in his next statement?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman should consider more closely the performance indicators that we are developing to examine those problems. Some ward closures represent sensible planning by the hospital authorities in the interests of conserving resources and increasing the throughput of patients in the very beds that we wish to see used to best effect.

Mr. Loyden: How can the Minister say that the closing of hospitals and reductions in the number of beds have no effect when a constituent of mine in her seventies has to wait more than two years for orthopaedic surgery? Is that how safe the Health Service is in the hands of the Government?

Mr. Patten: We are treating more patients this year than ever before—[HON. MEMBERS: "You make more people sick."] I cannot answer the specific point raised by


the hon. Gentleman as I do not know the circumstances of his constituent or the clinical judgment of the consultant involved, but we are treating more, not fewer, patients.

London Health Authorities (Manpower Cuts)

Mr. Dobson: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services why 78 per cent. of the total manpower cuts for England are expected of district and special health authorities in Greater London.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The manpower targets reflect the revenue position and individual circumstances of each region. London's health services remain funded at well above the national average level of spending. The lower manpower target for London reflects the general policy of making economies in better provided parts of London to provide extra resources for less well provided areas of the country.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Minister agree that the figures propounded by the Government for job losses in London due to Government measures are only a quarter or a fifth of the true figures? Does he accept that in the Greenwich district, in which the Government estimate is 145 job losses, the actual figure is likely to be 600 and that in Haringey, for which the official figure is 53, the actual figure is likely to be 298?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is misinterpreting the figures. Our target figures reflect a balance between the jobs which are, and always will be, required for new developments to improve the service and the number of posts that can be saved through more efficient use of manpower. The hon. Gentleman takes only one side of the equation. If the savings are made, the health authorities will release resources which would otherwise be wasted on unnecessary staffing and thus be able to improve their services. There has already been a growth of expenditure in London since the Government came to power. That area will therefore be able to press on with worthwhile developments despite the redistribution of growth money throughout the whole country.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the high commissioner for Papua New Guinea.

Mr. Adley: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement that she will be going to Hungary, may I ask whether she is aware that she will find there a fiercely proud nation, a nation deprived of self-determination in which protest at its subjugation is forbidden but which yearns to maintain contact with western Europe? Will she do all that she can to let the people there know that we appreciate their difficulties and are concerned about their future?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that the time is now right to make strenuous

efforts to have a sensible dialogue between East and West to ensure that there are no misunderstandings. The Deputy Prime Minister of Hungary paid a very successful visit to this country earlier this year. I hope to make a return visit shortly.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that all the cruise missiles have now arrived at Greenham common? Will she now tell us in what circumstances she would be prepared, if President Reagan bothered to ask her, to sanction the use of those missiles?

The Prime Minister: Cruise missiles will be coming in over quite a long period. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence promised to inform the House when the first ones arrived and he has done so. As for the right hon. Gentleman's second question, it would clearly be of the greatest possible use to the Soviet Union to know the precise circumstances or details of the arrangements. One does not normally help a potential aggressor in that way. The Labour Government never did so and I do not intend to have a worse record than theirs.

Mr. Kinnock: In the light of recent events, why is the Prime Minister still prepared to accept an utterly inferior status in what we thought was an alliance,? Can she not tell the difference between dependence and alliance, between the status of a partner in NATO and a lackey to the Americans?

The Prime Minister: Of course I can. I also know the difference between unilateral disarmament, which the right hon. Gentleman espouses, and multilateral disarmament, which we support.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the right hon. Lady aware that although there were times in the past when we could accept her credentials on multilateral disarmament, in the light of recent events those are now past and we do not believe that she is genuine?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is talking absolute rubbish. Arrangements with regard to American nuclear weapons on our soil remain precisely the same as those that existed during the time of the Labour Government. They satisfied all Labour Prime Ministers. Those arrangements have been applied to cruise missiles. As President Reagan said, there will be a joint decision before they are ever used. He also said that that is tantamount to a British veto on their use.

Mr. Kinnock: rose——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is normal to allow the Front Bench some latitude. I shall allow the Leader of the Opposition one more question.

Mr. Kinnock: I do not want to abuse your kindness, Mr. Speaker. These questions are so fundamental that they demand to be asked. I shall make this my last question. Is the right hon. Lady aware that nobody, be it President Reagan, his chiefs of staff, the Opposition or the British people, believes that there is joint determination over cruise missiles?

The Prime Minister: There is joint determination. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has doubts, but Labour Prime Ministers have been prepared to rest upon what I have described. I notice that neither the Leader of the


Opposition nor his colleagues were forthright or forward in their protest against the constant stationing of SS20s by the Soviet Union throughout the disarmament talks.

Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Has my right hon. Friend seen the private Member's Bill dealing with the disabled, which is to be debated later this week? Will she take this opportunity to remind the House of the Government's outstanding record on helping the disabled?

The Prime Minister: The Bill has been published and the Government's view will be given on the appropriate day. As my hon. Friend said, the Government's record on helping the disabled is outstanding. The mobility allowance is 90 per cent. higher than it was during the Labour Government and it is now tax-free. Expenditure on the long-term invalidity and disability benefits is 21 per cent. above the level of increase in inflation. We deliver the goods and the Opposition do the talking.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that those of us who are in favour of the dual key for cruise missiles will not allow it to become a source of anti-Americanism? Is she further aware that we shall also not allow advocacy of that argument to undermine the bargaining position of NATO in its attempt to achieve a reduction of SS20s? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that negotiations will continue until the end of December and that the Government will consult the United States about reducing the number of Pershings that are to be deployed? Does she agree that one way in which to show restraint in the deployment of cruise missiles would be to recognise the strength of Soviet feeling about Pershing?

The Prime Minister: I understand that negotiations in Geneva continued this morning. We hope that they will continue and that, if satisfactory agreement is not reached by the end of December, they will continue into next year. There are many proposals on the table that require serious consideration. With regard to some of the proposals on the proportion to be struck between cruise and Pershing, should the total number of nuclear missiles be diminished because we have reached agreement on a lower number, the same proportion between Pershing and cruise will be retained.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Prime Minister—who will have been grieved by the most recent murders of full-time and part-time members of the security forces in Northern Ireland — recognise how much the morale of those security forces has been sustained by her firm refusal to engage in or condone any attempts to weaken the constitutional status of Northern Ireland? Will she do all that is within her power to ensure that the security forces are not hampered in any way by inappropriate economic measures or considerations?

The Prime Minister: None of us can speak too highly of the bravery and courage of the police, the Ulster Defence Regiment and the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They do a great job trying to protect the weak and to uphold the law in a part of the United Kingdom. It will remain part of the United Kingdom unless the people there

wish otherwise. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have protected the forces of law and order and increased expenditure on them.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Powell: Is the Prime Minister aware of the delays to traffic over the Severn bridge, which results from the complacency and lethargic attitude of her Secretary of State for Transport? Will she ensure that the Welsh economy's lifeline is protected and compel her Minister to make a statement to the House before the end of the week?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows of the exchanges about the Severn bridge that have taken place in the House and that the Minister is awaiting a report before reaching a final decision on how best to cope with the problem. We are fully aware of the importance of that road bridge as an efficient means of transport to south Wales. We are also aware of its importance to present and future investment in that area.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I direct my right hon. Friend's attention to another matter? Will she today consult her Secretary of State for Energy and the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the cost of energy? How can she explain the proposed increases in the price of electricity and gas for next year — [Interruption.] Would the Opposition shut up?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am the person who should say that.

Mr. Winterton: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection. Will my right hon. Friend explain how she justifies these proposed price increases in the light of the huge profits that the gas and electricity industries have announced? Is she aware that those price increases will make British industry less competitive? Will she veto them?

The Prime Minister: Our policy is to set energy prices that relate to the trends and costs, and the costs of investment, in the industries concerned. With regard to electricity, the return on capital—the "huge profits" as my hon. Friend called them—is 1·5 per cent. I doubt whether many people would like to invest their savings for a return of 1·5 per cent. when the expected return on new investment is 5 per cent.
Some gas comes from the southern basin of the North sea and costs 6p a therm. However, because of exhaustion of the southern basin, an increasing quantity must come from the Frigg field and other imported sources. That gas costs 23p per therm. An increasing proportion of gas will come from more expensive fields. If gas prices were kept low, the cheap gas would be used up more quickly, to the detriment of future generations.

Mr. Needham: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 15 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Needham: Notwithstanding the reduction in the level of home improvement grants, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the real level of spending on such grants is much higher than it was under Labour?

The Prime Minister: The Government's record on home improvement grants is outstanding. The Labour Government spent £90 million a year on home improvement grants. That expenditure is expected to reach about £650 million this year. That is an excellent record.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Why has crime increased so much since the right hon. Lady came to office?

The Prime Minister: For the answer to that, the hon. Gentleman should go to the many reports that have been written. In fact, crime has increased in all countries of the world—[HON. MEMBERS: "No']—and as the reports

show, it is not directly related to unemployment. Crime increased during periods when unemployment was decreasing.

Mr. Fairbairn: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the reports in the newspapers today of the suppression and outlawing of all peace movements in the satellite countries that attempt to object to the deployment of Russian missiles in their nations? Will she notice that in this country, where that does not happen, three forces are now aiming at the same purpose—the Labour party, CND, and the Communist party? All are attempting to achieve the same aim as Soviet Russia?

The Prime Minister: I understand what my hon. and learned Friend is saying. Many brave and courageous lives have been lost defending the right of those people to say what they do. I wish that more people realised that.

Cyprus (Turkish Community)

Mr. Denis Healey: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the decision of the Turkish community in Cyprus to opt for a unilateral declaration of independence.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The position is that this morning the body calling itself the Assembly in northern Cyprus passed a resolution approving the establishment of a Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and a declaration of independence. Her Majesty's Government deplore this action by the Turkish Cypriot community, which amounts to a declaration of secession. We have issued a statement which makes it clear that it is incompatible with the 1960 treaties.
Our position has always been that we recognise only one Republic of Cyprus. That remains the position today. In our view, this latest move cannot be seen as altering the status of the Turkish Cypriot community. We would deeply regret it if, as seems all too likely, this action provokes the breakdown of the inter-communal talks and the consultations carried out by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Both have had our full support.
There have for some time been reports that a move of this sort was being contemplated by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. We have throughout made it clear, most recently, both to Mr. Denktash personally and at a high level at Ankara, that we would strongly disapprove such a move. It must be a matter for deep regret that those representations have apparently been disregarded. Our ambassador at Ankara has this morning, on my instructions, called on the Turkish Government not to associate themselves with this move by the Turkish Cypriot authorities. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has sent a similar message to President Evren urging him to help secure a reversal of the declaration.
In accordance with British responsibilities under the 1960 treaty of guarantee, I shall be proposing urgent consultations to both the Turkish and the Greek Governments. We are also in direct contact with the Government of Cyprus. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke this morning to President Kyprianou, and I have just seen the Cyprus high commissioner in London.
We shall consult urgently other interested Governments and also the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who has been playing a key role in the search for a peaceful solution to the longstanding Cyprus problem. In addition, we are approaching the President of the Security Council with a view to securing an early meeting.

Mr. Healey: I should like to associate the Labour Opposition with Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter, as explained by the Foreign Secretary and set out in the statement issued by the Foreign Office this morning, and, in particular, with the statement that Cyprus is a single state with a single President, Mr. Kyprianou. I also want to associate the Opposition with the condemnation of the act of the Turkish Cypriot Assembly, an act which is bound to have a damaging effect on the interests of its own people and on all people on the island of Cyprus, particularly the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees from the areas that are now under Turkish control.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has approached the Turkish Government on the matter. Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have any evidence that the action taken by the Assembly was instigated or approved by either the Turkish army or the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey? Second, in his approach to NATO and the European Community, will he ask them to warn the Turkish Government that any support they might give to the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot Assembly would be contrary to the interests of the Alliance and the Community, and would be bound to have a damaging effect on Turkish relations with both those bodies? Finally, will he tell us whether the United States Administration are taking the same position as Her Majesty's Government take on this matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for his support of the position that we have adopted. I entirely agree with what he said about the potentially damaging effects of the action, as he described them. Evidence of instigation is plainly not a matter on which I can have any certainty, but the latest evidence suggests that the Turkish Government have been taken by surprise. Of course, there have been rumours and suggestions that something of this kind would happen, and that is why we made representations to the Turkish Government.
I entirely accept the force of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Community to give the warning that he suggests to the Turkish Government. We do not yet fully understand the position of the United States Government, but preliminary indications show that they are likely to take a similar view.

Mr. Julian Amery: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that the 1960 treaty of guarantee, which I helped to negotiate, placed an obligation on the British Government to intervene to maintain the constitution of Cyprus, then agreed? Does he also agree that subsequently the Government of the day, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), made a historic mistake when they declined the invitation of the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, to intervene alongside the Turks to restore the constitution? In view of that mistake — probably an irretrievable mistake, which led to the widening gap between the two parties in Cyprus—will my right hon. and learned Friend be very cautious about taking sides in the dispute, remembering the importance of the sovereign base areas and the importance of Turkey, as well as Greece, as one of our allies?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I recall, of course, my right hon. Friend's role in the original 1960 treaties. If I remember correctly, it was recalled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) when he was questioned about this matter in a not dissimilar situation in 1974. Although the treaty gives the guarantors the right to take certain action, and obliges us to consult one another, it does not oblige us to take action of the kind that my right hon. Friend may have in mind. It is clear that this is not a military problem. The guarantor powers should be drawn together in consultation to see what further action can be taken with a view to reversing the Turkish Cypriot


decision. It is also clear, as my right hon. Friend points out, that we shall certainly not seek to take sides in the matter.

Mr. James Callaghan: Without trying to refight old battles, is not the situation now a little different from what it was in 1974, when the Turkish Government asked us to help them to invade the island to overthrow a gangster called Nicos Sampson, who had taken control of the island and deposed Archbishop Makarios, and who was supported by the Greek colonels — a dictatorship, fortunately later replaced by Prime Minister Karamanlis?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is, of course, very different from that which the right hon. Gentleman had to face, but the treaty obligations and the rights of the powers are precisely the same as they were then.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I do not dissent from anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said in his statement, hut, on the suggestion that the Turkish Government in some way instigated this action, is it not true that not only the existing although outgoing military Government but the new prospective Government have made it clear on all occasions that they want, not territorial aggrandisement in Cyprus to the benefit of Turkey—the last thing they want is to take on that responsibility—but to achieve the only conceivable solution to the problem, a genuine federal single state within Cyprus itself? That has always been the position of the Turkish Government and it remains so today.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the position of the Turkish Government as he sees it. The objective roust be to secure the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of what may well be a federal state.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Is it not a fact of life that Mr. Denktash must have sought permission from General Evren before daring to make such a statement? Is it not true that Mr. Ozal, the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey, said last week and repeated earlier this week that, should Mr. Denktash declare independence unilaterally for the Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, he would give full support to that declaration, and it would certainly have the backing of the Turkish occupying troops?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the two press reports of Mr. Ozal's views. One of those reports was a correction of the other, and they are both slightly confusing. Regardless of the outcome of the recent elections in Turkey, we have been making our views absolutely plain to the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish Government for a long time. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was in Ankara last month, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Baroness Young, saw Mr. Denktash in Nicosia recently. I myself have seen Mr. Turkmen twice since the late summer, and have discussed the matter at the United Nations. We have taken every opportunity to make our view plain.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: My right hon. and learned Friend's firm statement will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House. Does he appreciate that the declaration of independence could lead to further violence in Cyprus and further destabilisation of the eastern Mediterranean and that, over the years, many

Turkish Cypriots have been strongly opposed to such a declaration? Will he continue to take the lead in the international community in working for a peaceful and unified Cyprus?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this subject, which he made plain in initiating the Adjournment debate on 27 July., and I entirely agree with him about the necessity for warning about the possible consequences of this unwise action.

Mr. Eric Deakins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to put the strongest possible pressure on Turkey, and does he recognise the crucial importance of the United States of America in this matter? The United States may carry more weight with Turkey than the whole of the rest of the Western Alliance.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear in mind the important role that the United States could play.

Sir Ian Gilmour: The position as it existed in Cyprus until today suited too many people in both halves of the island and too many foreign Governments as well, though not Her Majesty's Government. Should we not, therefore, avoid trying to return to the status quo of yesterday, but rather work towards a comprehensive settlement?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend is right to stress the need to work towards a comprehensive settlement. It was to that end that the United Nations Secretary-General resumed his initiative, and to that end that I have discussed the matter twice with President Kyprianou and twice with the Secretary-General.

Mr. Robin Corbett: While condemning this impudent and dangerous action, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will confirm that it remains Government policy to work for the restoration of the territorial independence and sovereignty of the island of Cyprus?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Yes indeed—the independence, sovereignty and integrity of that state.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Does not today's deplorable event mean an end to the intercommunal talks? Will there not therefore be a greater need than at anytime since 1974 for active participation by Her Majesty's Government in seeking a just solution?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need for us to take all possible steps to promote a more effective search for a solution. However, as I have made plain in my statement and my answers this afternoon, we have already been extremely active in promoting moves in that direction.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: The Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus is not economically viable. It is totally dependent upon economic support from Turkey. Must not the responsibility for the unilateral declaration of independence rest to a large extent upon our NATO partners in Ankara? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore take appropriate action to ensure that a Government who condone military invasion do not remain part of NATO?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I would not be disposed to take the hon. Gentleman's advice in that respect. I remind the House again that the Prime Minister has already sent an


urgent message to President Evren, urging him to secure a reversal of the declaration. I understand that the Turkish national security council was convened at about noon today and is still meeting. We shall have to await the result of our representations.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Has not what has taken place arisen out of sheer frustration that the attempt to solve the problem by the United Nations and by other powers has dragged on over a number of years with no apparent result?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: Plainly, frustration is likely to be increased if the search for a peaceful solution is prolonged. Everyone would wish that a solution could have been found earlier. The true foundation for a peaceful solution, however, must depend on the attitude of the communities concerned.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there is no question of the Government recognising the new regime in the northern part of Cyprus? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman communicates with the Government of Turkey, will he deplore their support for the UDI? Will he also consider whether it is appropriate for the British Government to have any relationship with the repressive military junta in Ankara which has imprisoned thousands of people, including, very recently, the president of the Turkish Peace Association and 17 of his colleagues? Is it not possible that the support given by the British Government to the junta has led to take the foolish course of supporting UDI?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have taken every opportunity to express to the Turkish Government our firm opposition to any step of this kind. I therefore repudiate the suggestion implied in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Since we are in a treaty relationship with the Government of Turkey as well as with that of Greece, it is important for us to take steps jointly as guarantor powers

to find a solution. We deplore what has taken place, and there can be no question of the recognition of more than one Government for Cyprus.

Mr. John Corrie: For the last nine years there have been, de facto, two states in Cyprus and the intercommunal talks between the two ethnic groups have got nowhere. In order to bring some sense to both sides, do not the British Government need to exert more influence, and should not British diplomacy be brought in to work out an agreement for that sad island?

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would be highly desirable, if it were possible, to end the division of the island. It must be remembered that in such an intercommunal conflict the power of the British Government, with all our diplomacy, must be limited, but we shall continue to do everything that we can.

Mr. Healey: What has emerged from this exchange is that, at the moment, the prime responsibility lies with the Government in Ankara. If they wish, they can be responsible for a major move forward to a general solution on the island. If they take the other course of recognising an independent Turkish state in the north of Cyprus, they will gravely damage their relations with their friends and allies and their partners in the Community, and will embark on a course that will progressively estrange them from all their Western friends. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make that clear to the Prime Minister-elect of Turkey.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would not be right to conclude that the prime responsibility for what has happened so far rests on the Turkish Government. I do not believe that that is what the right hon. Gentleman meant to imply. The responsibility rests upon the shoulders of Mr. Denktash and his colleagues. Plainly, however, the attitude of the Turkish Government could be crucial to the prospect of moving in a sensible, or unwise, direction. That was why I acted as soon as I could this morning to make our view clear to the Turkish Government, and why the Prime Minister has urged President Evren to try to secure a reversal of the declaration.

House of Commons Stationery (Members' Use)

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise a matter that is of importance and concern to all hon. Members. It involves the use of stationery and official-paid envelopes and, in particular, the effect of the guidance contained in the 1975–76 and 1977–78 reports of the Services Committee on the use of stationery for party-political purposes.
A near resident in my borough drew my attention to a letter that had been sent out by my neighbour the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at the end of October. It seems to have been one of a number of letters entitled
Meeting of All Peckham Labour Party School Governors at Camden Tenants' Hall, Camden Estate, London SE15, on Wednesday, 23rd November 1983, at 7.30 pm.
It states:
Once again the Tory Government is attacking the Inner London Education Authority. First, they aim to cut ILEA's spending which would result in sacking teachers and poorer education. Second, they plan to break up ILEA altogether. Previous attempts to undermine ILEA have floundered because of a united campaign by all those who care about our children's future and adult education. The campaign to fend off this latest attack is on the way.
In conjunction with the Peckham Labour Governors' Convener (John Maurice), and Southwark's Socialist Education Association (Steve Burt), I am calling a meeting which I hope all Peckham Governors will attend. We will be joined by Ruth Gee, ILEA's Deputy Leader"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not read out the letter; he has sent me a copy.

Mr. Hughes: The letter was sent out in a House of Commons pre-paid envelope and on notepaper with the portcullis on it. There was a pre-paid card for reply. All of us need to know to what extent we are governed by the Select Committee's guidance as to where political purposes begin and end, and whether we can use material that has been provided, or purchased by hon. Members and which has the House of Commons insignia, for political, as opposed to parliamentary purposes.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should welcome any guidance that you may wish to give me or the House. However, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was referring to a meeting of local governors to protect our

children's education. I offered to discuss the matter with your Office, Mr. Speaker, in order not to detain the House, but the hon. Gentleman insisted on raising a point of order. [Interruption.] Clearly he and I have a different interpretation of protecting our constituents' interests. Mine is to call a meeting of local school governors, while his is to abuse the procedures of the House by raising a point of order as a publicity stunt.

Mr. Speaker: I shall look into the case. I remind all hon. Members of the recommendation of the Services Committee on the use of House of Commons stationery and post-paid envelopes. Extracts of it are available in a leaflet entitled, "House of Commons Stationery and Post-Paid Envelopes", which is issued by the Serjeant at Arms.

Mr. Roland Boyes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was that a legitimate point of order? We could all raise all sorts of issues by saying "On a point of order" and then complaining about another hon. Member. Was the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) legitimate?

Mr. Speaker: I heard it as a legitimate point of order. We do not want to make too much of the issue, but the guidelines are plain and clear. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will abide by them.

Mr. Don Dixon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you draw the attention of the Select Committee dealing with accommodation to the fact that a silly taxi is invariably parked in the car park every morning when I arrive at the House? It has got stickers on it. Is it not time that that monstrosity was moved?

Mr. Speaker: I doubt whether that is a matter for me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House I shall put together the Questions on the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 3) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Prospective Cost) Regulations 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Working Conditions of Government Trainees

Mr. Dave Nellist: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend enactments relating to health, safety and other working conditions of employees to the trainees on Government schemes; and for connected purposes.
The Government plan to incarcerate 500,000 young people in the "educational dustbins" of the youth training scheme. So far, 250,000 youngsters are in placements. The House will be well aware of Labour Members' opposition to the job substitution, the artificial reduction of the dole figures, the cheapening of youth wages and the inadequate provision for proper health and safety cover that have so far characterised in such schemes.
My Bill intends to remedy such problems. Its central aim is to change the status of trainees to that of employees. Since the inception of the general training schemes for unemployed school leavers, 79 fatalities have been recorded. Several of those deaths occurred in places of work that had not received any prior inspection by qualified health and safety or factory inspectors.
Trainees on the Government's youth training scheme, and its forerunner the youth opportunities programme, are at a greater risk of being killed or of suffering a major injury than workers in all but four of the most dangerous occupations: mining, shipbuilding, construction and metal manufacture. A major injury consists of a fracture of the skull, spine, or pelvis, the main bone of an arm or leg, amputation of a hand or foot, the loss of sight in an eye, or any injury that requires hospital treatment for more than 24 hours.
I believe that the most crucial task facing the Conservative Government, and the one that they have most spectacularly failed to accomplish, is the provision of genuine work for the unemployed. The youth training scheme was inaugurated as a cosmetic exercise to massage the dole figures, generally lower the level of young workers' wages and to introduce a year of social control in an attempt to forestall a repetition of the events of the summer of 1981. That statement on the reduction of youth wages is borne out by the remarks made by the Minister for unemployment in last Thursday's debate, to the effect that since 1979 the ratio of youth to adult wages had fallen by 10 per cent. for boys and more than 10 per cent. for girls. That fulfils the predictions made by the former Secretary of State for Employment the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) when he said that the task was to "price youngsters into jobs."
Despite the well-intentioned efforts of those workers charged at local level with making the scheme work, 1·2 million people aged under 25 are already out of work. Two out of every three graduating from the youth training scheme can expect to join them. Creating the best-trained dole queue in Europe is no real achievement. The jobs just do not exist in which to use those skills. Attempting to hide the real lack of jobs is playing at "Elastoplast politics"
For the 250,000 16 and 17-year-olds in placement on the youth training scheme, the conditions of the scheme leave loopholes through which unscrupulous employers can organise exploitation. The vast majority of trainees on the youth training scheme are employed neither by the

company providing the training nor by the Manpower Services Commission. In consequence, the trainees do not have the full protection of all the legislation designed to protect the health, safety and other working conditions of employees generally. They are not employed, unemployed or students. All the punitive trappings of employment are there without legislative protection.
The trainees are paid an allowance of £25 for a 40-hour week, which can be docked for bad behaviour or poor time-keeping. They can be suspended or sacked without redress and at the end of the year two thirds of them are unceremoniously put back in the dole queue. The central aim of the Bill will be to change the status of working trainees to that of employees, and, by so doing, to extend existing protection given to employed workers to those on youth training schemes.
The Government recently partially extended to trainees some of the provisions affecting employed workers. Sadly, that was not done through the Government's initiative. It has taken pressure from bodies within the trade union movement, youth campaign groups and the families of trainees to produce the changes. A ruling of the employment appeals tribunal on 22 October 1982 confirmed the lack of employee status under the Race Relations Act 1976. Trainees were judged not to have the protection against discrimination given by that Act to employees. Nine months later, in July 1983, the Minister of State, Department of Employment recognised the anomaly by issuing designation orders under section 13 of the Race Relations Act 1976, as well as under section 14 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. He thus extended to trainees the full protection given by those Acts.
It appears that moves have at last been made to introduce a similar procedure for safety, but it is too little and too late. Having nine part-time safety advisers to keep watch over YTS will not prevent deaths, such as that of a young boy in Sheffield who was caught in the blades of a paper shredder, or the death of a young boy in Coatbridge who was given paraffin to clean a machine and was burned to death. In Blaenau Gwent, a young lad was caught in a machine that was about to flatten insulation material.
Sections 52 and 53 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, by their definition of the terms "work", "at work", and "employee", specifically exclude those under a contract of training with the youth training schemes. Following considerable public disquiet at the rate of fatalities on training schemes in major industries, the Health and Safety Commission only today published a consultative document containing draft proposals for regulations to give trainees on YTS the same coverage as employees under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. Those regulations should be in force at the beginning of 1984. My Bill, however, would remove the necessity for the Government to respond periodically in such a piecemeal fashion by automatically giving trainees the same protection as the current legislation for employees. In addition, the number of deaths and serious accidents clearly demonstrates a need for mandatory inspection of any work place by trained safety personnel before a trainee is to be set on.
In my correspondence this morning, I received a letter from a former training instructor who described his training school as follows:
The roof leaked, a spray painting booth operated without an extraction system. There were no trained first aid staff, and there was a first aid box without plasters. The electric trunking was


bare and uncovered, and there was no heating. Sanitary conditions consisted of two wash-basins and one WC for 36 trainees and three staff.
Labour Members will continue to pursue the Government over conditions on youth training schemes. We shall campaign for youth trainees not to be placed by the Manpower Services Commission at factories that are not registered under the Factories Act 1971. All employers will be required to produce an effective safety policy before they are allowed to take on youth trainees.
Youth trainees suffering injury or sickness should be legally entitled to state sickness benefit and industrial disablement benefits. Special attention should be paid to youth trainees in the accident statistics collected under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980. MSC link officers should have improved training in health and safety, and should have direct contact with factory inspectors before approving schemes. They should give priority to visiting premises where youth trainees have been placed. Youth trainees should not be required to accept places under threat of loss of unemployment benefit when they consider that there is an unacceptable risk to their health and safety.
Finally, experience has demonstrated that fines against employers responsible for conditions leading to major accidents are too low to be seriously effective as a deterrent. Solid trade union organisation at the workplace is the only guarantee of daily, successful monitoring of workers' health and safety, and will in many cases provide a necessary starting point for effective application of safety laws.
I welcome, therefore, the initiatives of the trade union movement to recruit trainees from the ranks of organised labour. Their intervention will be necessary to persuade employers to convert YTS places into permanent jobs at the end of the scheme, and to achieve topping up of allowances to the rate for apprentices and prevent the exploitation at which unscrupulous employers prove so adept.
Despite Government protestations to the contrary, YTS cannot create jobs for youngsters, except in so far as it reduces the level of youth wages and splits wages for apprenticeships into two or more low-paid jobs. It is not a solution to youth unemployment. For that, we need a change of Government and a change of the ownership and control of wealth and production.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Terry Fields, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Eddie Loyden, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Roland Boyes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. John Evans, Ms Jo Richardson and Mr. Dennis Canavan.

WORKING CONDITIONS OF GOVERNMENT TRAINEES

Mr. Dave Nellist accordingly presented a Bill to extend enactments relating to health, safety and other working conditions of employees to the trainees on Government schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 January and to be printed.—[Bill 55.]

Orders of the Day — Coal Industry Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is an important debate because we are talking about a substantial extension of the financial requirements of the National Coal Board. The external financing limit of the NCB will be well over £1 billion for the year 1983–84. In that year both the deficit and social grants of the NCB will be about £650 million—on average, £50 per week for every person employed in the coal industry. Even after those grants, it is expected that there w ill be a loss of almost £200 million by the NCB. Therefore, it is important that we review the present situation and take the action that is necessary so that the finances of the NCB are provided for and its activities continued. We should also make judgments on the need for improvements in productivity and performance and review the scope of the industry.
In 1973 I introduced the Coal Industry Act of that year, which the National Union of Mineworkers described as the most important and beneficial Act for the coal industry since the original Act resulting in nationalisation. When I did that I was optimistic about the future of the coal industry and its importance to our energy resources. Ten years later I am again responsible for energy, and I emphasise the immense importance of the coal industry for long-term energy supplies in this country and western Europe. We have important and good coal reserves. Our coal mining machinery industry is as good, technologically, as any in the western world. Therefore, that area of energy provision is of considerable importance to us.
I am sure that on reflection hon. Members on both sides of the House and those who represent mining constituencies will be concerned about the dramatic adverse features of the NCB's finances, reflected in the necessity for the Bill to be introduced. When the Labour Government came into power in 1974, they produced "Plan for Coal" after a dialogue with the NCB and the NUM. They envisaged that that important plan would ensure that the mining industry had a strong, successful and viable future. If one reads the debates that took place in the House at that time and those that took place when the strategy was reviewed in 1977, one sees that there was on both sides of the House an expression of hope and confidence.
Basically there were three major provisions in "Plan for Coal". One was a substantial investment programme of considerable proportions. The second was that there would be a reduction in the capacity produced by the least economic pits. The third was that there would be a substantial improvement in productivity as a result of the enormous investment programme that was to take place. Anyone reviewing the scene 10 years later will find that of the three basic ingredients — the investment programme, the reduction in economic capacity and the improvement in productivity — the only one that has


been completely fulfilled—indeed, more than fulfilled—is that for which the Government have responsibility: the investment programme.
The investment programme has been substantial by any standards. To give the House the figures, during the immediate period 1974 to 1979, following the publication of "Plan for Coal" by the Labour Government £1,472 million was invested in the coal industry—a substantial sum, and up to what had been promised in "Plan for Coal". In the period since then, 1979 to 1983, when the Conservative Government have been in power, investment in the coal industry has been £3,511 million. During the whole period of the Conservative Government the investment has run at more than £2 million a day.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Chicken-feed.

Mr. Walker: It means that the totality is more than was advocated.

Mr. Skinner: Chicken-feed.

Mr. Walker: To use a phrase, some chicken. The totality is considerable. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) may be under the same wrong impression as the National Union of Mineworkers has been under. The NUM pointed out in a letter to me that in its judgment we had not fulfilled the investment programme outlined in "Plan for Coal". The NUM stated that we had invested £4,600 million when, adjusted for inflation, we would have needed to invest £6,500 million. That was the view held by the National Union of Mineworkers. I was able to correct that view, because obviously someone had done the sums incorrectly. When adjusted for inflation the figure that has been invested is not £6,500 million, which was envisaged in the Labour party's "Plan for Coal", but £7,150 million. Therefore, by any criteria and any standards, and adjusted for inflation, the investment programme has been more than was envisaged in the original "Plan for Coal". During the entire period of the Conservative Government it has been at the rate of £2 million per day.

Mr. Roy Mason: As the Minister is praising the Government's efforts in maintaining the investment programme in "Plan for Coal", surely he also recognises that within "Plan for Coal" there was a desire for increased output per man-shift, which has been achieved, and an agreement that there should be a reduction in absenteeism, which has also been achieved. This has been achieved with the British coalmining industry producing deep-mined coal with fewer subsidies than its western European counterparts.

Mr. Walker: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman I shall examine the next two areas. I have mentioned investment which, by any measurement, has been higher than envisaged in "Plan for Coal". That has gone on under this Government to a greater extent than under their predecessors.
In productivity, the right hon. Gentleman points out that improvements have taken place per man-shift. Indeed, in the last 12 to 18 months, prior to the ban on overtime, improvements were taking place. "Plan for Coal", laid down by the Labour Government and revised in 1977, envisaged an improvement in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. In the first 10 years, 1972–73 to 1982–83, the

total increase in productivity was 4·7 per cent. Instead of 4 per cent. per annum over a 10-year period, there was an improvement in productivity of 4·7 per cent. Therefore, the second main criterion in "Plan for Coal" has by any standards been disappointing.

Mr. Mason: The right hon. Gentleman must make it clear whether he is talking about and overall increase in productivity or the output per man-shift at the coal face, where there has been an acceptance of coal-face machinery, no Luddism and remarkable progress on coal-face production.

Mr. Walker: I am using the criteria that the Labour Government used in "Plan for Coal". I am using the figures that they used which envisaged an overall improvement in productivity of 4 per cent. per annum. What has been achieved is 4·7 per cent. over a decade. That is the difference.
The second area where a major difference takes place is that "Plan for Coal" envisaged that there would be a reduction in existing capacity of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year. Obviously investment would bring on new capacity, which it has done and is continuing to do. In practice, during the 10 years of "Plan for Coal" the reduction in capacity has not been achieved, the rate of reduction has been about half what was proposed.
The "Plan for Coal" was put forward enthusiastically by the Labour Government, with their close association with the mining industry. The Labour Government were willing to invest considerable sums, and they genuinely expected reductions of the most ineffective capacity, as well as improvements in productivity. Of the three major factors in "Plan for Coal", only the investment factor has been more than achieved. Progress in the other two areas has been disappointing.
As to the future of the coal industry, it could not be expressed better than in the comments of the then Secretary of State for Energy when the whole position was reviewed in 1977. When the coal industry and the National Union of Mineworkers asked the Labour Government to guarantee a market of 170 million or even 200 million tonnes a year the comment of the Labour Government was:
The coal industry has in its own hands the opportunity to shape its long-term future. It has the reserves and the technology to make a major contribution to meeting our long-term energy needs. How much reliance we shall be able to place on coal in future will depend on the industry's success in deploying those assets so as to keep coal competitive with other fuels.
That was the refusal of the Labour Government to accept a specific target and a decision that, having made the investment and having agreed the potential for productivity, that is what could be achieved.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The original "Plan for Coal" was published against a different economic climate than we are facing today. What about the collapse of demand? What about what has happened to the steel industry which matches knock for knock what has happened to the coal industry?

Mr. Walker: That is right; and the coal industry with other industries has suffered from the problems connected with the world recession. However, one could argue that in such an adjustment of world demand for energy and coal, there was every justification for a substantial reduction in the investment programme. That is the only


element of "Plan for Coal" that has been maintained, while improvements in productivity and the closure of the least economic pits simply did not happen. One could also argue that during a world recession there is more justification for reducing the number of least economic pits.
That is the background that has created severe financial problems for the National Coal Board. On 11 July I had to tell the House that, on the basis of its 1982–83 accounts, the board's accumulated losses were greater than its reserves, and that it was technically insolvent. The board had stated its intention of remedying the serious financial position and achieving a return to viability, and I made it clear that advances to the board would continue to be made out of the NLF and that the Government would continue to make avaiable adequate funds to enable the board to meet its obligations.
Beyond the end of 1983–84 new powers are required if our support for the board is to continue. That is the purpose of the Bill, which makes provision for the powers that are needed to support the industry for a further two years. Thereafter, new provisions will be needed. I do not envisage the board's need for support ending after two years, but it will be timely when new provisions are laid before the House in two years' time for the Government and the House to review the board's progress up to that point.

Mr. Skinner: I hope that the Secretary of State is not going to make great play of the insolvency, as he calls it, of the National Coal Board, because for most of the period during which he says there was a lack of productivity he, along with Jim Slater, was organising Slater Walker trusts all round the world. That company went bankrupt, and the Labour Government, while trying to deal with "Plan for Coal" and many other matters, had to bail out that bankrupt firm which he had milked so successfully many years before — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The Government used taxpayers' money to bail out that property skeleton. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for attacking both the miners and the Labour Government for providing investment to the British coal industry.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman becomes more pathetic and stupid as time goes on. He mentioned a company with which I was connected, but, as he knows, I had no connection with that company for many years before it was in difficulty. His attitude towards miners is one of the most damaging that any Member of the House could have, because he continually fails to tell them about the reality of the position. He tries to use them as a political instrument for his Left-wing views. I know of few hon. Members who do more damage to the miners' cause than does the hon. Gentleman.
Clause 1 provides for loans to the board from the National Loans Fund to continue to a new limit of £6 billion. At the end of September 1983 the board's borrowing stood at £4,122 million. Clause 1 provides for an interim limit on loans of £5·5 billion, which may be increased by order to £6 billion. Therefore, the House will have a further opportunity to review the industry's progress before the higher figure becomes effective.
Clause 2 provides for a limit of £1·2 billion on the amount of deficit grant which may be paid to the board in the financial years 1983–84 to 1985–86. That limit may be increased by order to £2 billion. It also provides for the

repeal of some sections of the Coal Industry Acts 1973 and 1977 which are no longer needed. The grants made under those sections were completed in the 1982–83 financial year. All future payments of revenue grant support to the board other than social grants will take the form of payments made to reduce or to remove the group deficit of the board on its revenue account.

Mr. Dick Douglas: What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Scotland about the relationship between the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the National Coal Board, especially with regard to the contract that was announced last week which substantially reduces the coal won and imperils many mining jobs in my constituency?

Mr. Walker: I have not discussed that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland since last week, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention.
Clauses 3 and 4 extend for a further two years the powers to make social grants to the board and payments under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme. Those grants and payments have been made for many years, as have grants for pit closures—a rather alarming title for grants which provide reimbursement of half of the board's expenditure on a variety of payments for redundancy and transfer—and support for concessionary coal provisions, which were first introduced in 1965. The redundant mineworkers payment scheme was introduced in 1967 and was extended to include concessionary coal under powers taken in the Coal Industry Act 1973—an Act which I was proud to take through the House. In the debate on both the Coal Industry Acts brought before the House by this Administration, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Under-Secretary of State for Energy, made it clear that the powers to make those grants and payments would be continued after their expiry date of 31 March 1984. This Bill continues for two years in line with the other financial powers.
The present position on expenditure under section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977, which I must bring to the attention of the House, demonstrates all too clearly why the higher limit on such expenditure is needed. The present limit of £300 million covers payments under the redundant mineworkers payment scheme and payments to the board in support of the provision of concessionary coal, as introduced in 1973 and as extended earlier this year. The limit of £300 million covers payments made between April 1978 and March 1984. The limit was set by the Coal Industry Act 1982. At the time it was expected to suffice, but since then there have been improvements in the terms of the scheme embodied in the amended order debated in the House on 22 March, and redundancies have increased. During the first half of the financial year 1983–84 there were more than 10,000 redundancies of men on colliery books, compared with 8,100 in 1982–83 and 9,300 in 1981–82. For those reasons I now expect that payments under section 7 will reach the £300 million limit in early December. It is not likely that the Bill will have received Royal Assent by that time, but I am sure that no hon. Member would wish payments to redundant mineworkers to be halted or curtailed until the Bill becomes law. Accordingly, I propose to continue payments under the scheme using money already provided within the Vote


upon which the scheme's expenditure is carried. Higher provision for the Vote will be sought by means of a Supplementary Estimate in the spring.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that, even after the March uprating, some miners who have worked in the industry all their lives, but who have unfortunately become severely disabled, have not received their full entitlement of redundancy payments, although that was the will of the House in March?

Mr. Walker: We are considering the matter now, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that there will be a careful examination of it.

Mr. Michael McGuire: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the money that is provided for concessionary coal. May I draw his attention to a problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and others have mentioned from time to time—the many men, and the widows of some men who have died, who left the coal industry because they suspected that they had pneumoconiosis. They were not certified as suffering from it at the time. They left the industry and worked sometimes only for a short time in other jobs. If the company for which they worked had a scheme for examining the health of its workers, or if they were so ill that they were sent to the doctor, those men eventually came before the pneumoconiosis medical board and were awarded compensation. I have met some widows, and I recently met a constituent who was certified as 100 per cent. disabled because of pneumoconiosis. He had spent all his working life in the coal industry and had left it for only two years before he was found to be suffering from pneumoconiosis, but he receives no concessionary coal. Will the Minister try to make some small concession for those people, because it would be appreciated by many widows of men who gave a lifetime to the industry and by many miners who are now suffering from pneumoconiosis?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I hope that interventions will not develop into speeches.

Mr. Walker: I note what the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McGuire) says, but a vast amount of money is spent on concessionary coal schemes. Perhaps we should consider a redistribution of the money to meet the problems involved. The overall scheme is generous. The redundancy scheme is not related to the aspect that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.

Mr. Alec Woodall: Clause 4 on payments to redundant workers increases the
limit on the amount of such payments from £300 million to £1,200 million.
By how many more do the Government expect to increase the number of redundant miners from 1984 onwards?

Mr. Walker: The number of redundancies that have taken place so far is higher than was originally expected and estimated. The terms of the scheme have been substantially improved. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is done by a pit by pit examination. It is done in full consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. Younger miners have had alternative jobs made available

to them, and some of the older miners have had redundancy payments which, by any standards in this country, are generous and reasonable.

Mr. Woodall: rose——

Mr. Walker: I repeat what I said earlier. The "Plan for Coal" of the Labour Government envisaged that the reduction of existing capacity would be twice as fast as the reduction that has taken place. I deplore those who suggest that it is monstrous to have pit closures and that closures should be opposed, when the record of pit closures since the war shows that pit closures have taken place at a faster rate under Labour Governments than under Conservative Governments. In the past 10 years when Labour Governments have been in power the average number of pit closures has been about 27 a year. In the past eight years of Conservative Governments pit closures have taken place at the rate of 10 a year. I recognise that great problems are connected with any pit closure, but it is absurd for the Labour party to pretend that if it was in power there would not be pit closures when all the time it has been in power there have been substantial pit closures.

Mr. William O'Brien: May I remind the Minister that pit closures have taken place where there has been seam exhaustion and where it has not been possible to work a pit? That has been accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no compulsory redundancies for younger men in the industry? We have had assurances in the past, and even MacGregor has suggested that there will be no compulsory redundancies. Will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no compulsory redundancies in the mining industry?

Mr. Walker: That depends on the success of the coal industry in the coming period. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the time for pit closure is when a seam is exhausted. The plan agreed by the Labour Government in 1974 and 1977 of closures at the rate of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year of existing capacity was based not on pits where seams were completely exhausted, but on the least economic pits being closed and the new investment programme opening pits. The future of the industry is dependent on the time when plenty of young miners can be recruited on good pay and conditions, but that depends on the industry being economic and efficient, as was envisaged by the Labour Government in the "Plan for Coal". While I am responsible for the industry, my objective will be to achieve that purpose. It will be achieved only with a recognition that it is not in the interests of future young miners to keep inefficient and uneconomic pits open. It is very much against their interests.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does that mean that there are likely to be more redundancies at modern productive pits such as Monktonhall in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie)? What consultations took place before those redundancies were declared?

Mr. Walker: The procedures for pit closure are agreed with the National Union of Mineworkers. When I met the miners' leaders, they asked me to guarantee that the board will continue the existing procedure on pit closures. It is the view of the board that that should take place.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman must be better briefed if he is to suggest that the redundancies at the Monktonhall colliery in my constituency took place after consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. I must tell him that there was no consultation, which was one of the causes of an eight-week strike.

Mr. Skinner: Answer that.

Mr. Walker: That was a matter not of closure, but of achieving productivity that had been agreed and negotiated previously. That was the issue, and the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) knows it well.
Clauses 5 and 6 deal necessarily with the interpretation, citation and extent of the Bill.
We are debating a massive further injection of money into the coal industry. Any suggestions, cheap propaganda, gibes or phrases about the Government wishing to destroy the coal industry or to make miners redundant on a large scale for the joy of doing so are nonsense. The facts and the figures that I have given to the House this afternoon prove that. In the history of this country no other Government have invested anything like £2 million a day in capital investment in the coal industry or, indeed, any other industry. We have seen to it that the most up-to-date equipment is installed. I gave approval for developing the Selby coalfield, which will be one of the most successful major coal seams in the country.
I judge now from my position as Secretary of State for Energy that the coal industry has a considerable and important future. Young miners must be able to earn good wages. I am pleased to say that, during the Government's period of office, miners' earnings, compared with average earnings in manufacturing industry have improved, not declined. We have recognised the important and difficult job that miners carry out. Therefore, I urge the House to accept the Bill and to give it a Second Reading. I also hope that, when we next discuss the finances of the National Coal Board, we will have made the progress that such massive investment requires and deserves.

Mr. Mason: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has sat down.

Mr. Stanley Orme: We shall want to examine in some detail the points made by the Minister about the coal industry, not least his attitude to "Plan for Coal" and the long-term future of the industry. While the Bill deals specifically with the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board — and for obvious reasons therefore, the Labour party will not oppose the Bill tonight—we shall in Committee want to debate the problems of the industry and raise major matters affecting future energy policy. When my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) winds up, he will have further points to make about the Bill and our attitude to it.
At the outset I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) who hopes to speak later in the debate. For the past 14 years he has played a prominent part in the Labour party, both in government and in opposition. He is well respected by his colleagues in the House and the National Union of

Mineworkers. I pay tribute on behalf of the Labour party to the work that he has done; and may he long continue to play a part.
There is a crisis in the coal industry today and, in our view, that crisis is completely unjustified. The relationship between the miners and the Government has deteriorated since 1979. The Secretary of State spoke of actions that he took in 1973, but he must realise that there is a world of difference between then and now. The then Government did not have to deal with 4 million unemployed. Manufacturing industry had not been destroyed to the degree that it has been in the past four years of Conservative rule. We were then living in an entirely different era, and in our view the present conflict is completely unnecessary. "Plan for Coal" is still the soundest policy. It should be pursued again and we should return to a tripartite approach to the industry.
As the Minister said, the purpose of the Bill in clause 1 is to provide the Government with the opportunity of increasing the borrowing powers of the board; in clause 2 to increase the deficit grant limit; in clause 3 to increase grants in connection with pit closures; and in clause 4 to increase the scope for payments to be made by the Government to redundant workers.
I deal first with clause 4, which deals with the redundant miners' payment scheme. It is like increasing the death grant so that the coal industry can have a decent funeral. Instead, we need money to keep the coal industry alive. It is a Government, not a board, scheme, although it is administered under central Government control by an agency operated by the NCB on behalf of the Department of Energy. As the sum includes payments to those made redundant during the financial year, may we be told how the Department made the assessment and what redundancy figure has been used for that exercise?
We must discuss the Bill in the context of the Conservatives' overall policy since 1979. In the two previous Coal Industry Acts, for 1980 and 1982, along with the targets of external financing limits, their policy has had two objectives. The first has been to reduce the number of schemes under which the coal industry received grants from the Government to facilitate increased pit closures. The second has been to reduce the payments over the years to make the NCB ultimately self-financing.
As the House knows, that policy has been in trouble since February 1981 because of the depressed state of the economy and the run-down of the manufacturing sector of industry against a background of increased fuel costs. We have the detailed figures of losses and Government grants, and recently we have had the hostile report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission saying:
On the information available to us, there is little possibility that the NCB will be able to operate without a deficit grant, let alone generate sufficient funds to finance any significant part of its own capital investment, before the end of this decade.
Yet the Government expect the NCB to stop receiving deficit grants by 1986. This inconsistency must mean further closures and cutbacks. Or is it just one more promise that cannot be kept?
The Government do not say why the NCB figures look so bad. A major factor is that the NCB has had to make enormous interest payments to the Government. In 1982–83 the NCB paid £366 million in interest; in 1981–82, £341 million; and in 1980–81, £256 million.


Therefore a high proportion of the grants paid to the NCB are repaid in the form of interest payments for previous borrowing.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is the right hon. Gentleman mindful of the fact that the NCB has not paid interest on £865 million because that was written off?

Mr. Orme: The burden of interest payments could be removed by introducing legislation on capital reconstruction, which could be of great benefit to the industry and the nation. After all, the debts of British Airways will be written off as soon as it suits the Government to sell that industry to their friends; capital reconstruction can then take place. Why, then, can it not take place now in the mining industry?
It can be strongly argued that the strategy of which the Bill is part will result in more pit closures. The way in which the grants have been organised strengthens that view; the time period is extended for grants in connection with pit closures and for payments to redundant workers.
However, the main reason for fears about closures is the fact that the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission provided details of the enormous losses of many pits. The report pointed out that high-cost pits imposed a heavy burden on the industry's finances, but it failed to attribute that to the falling demand from industry. In particular, the disastrous state of the steel industry has made the coal industry so depressed. We are now paying the concealed price for closures in the steel industry. Tomorrow we shall pay the concealed price for closures in the coal industry. Where will it end?
The depressed state of the economy—the direct result of Government policy—is making more and more pits vulnerable, and therefore to define an uneconomic pit becomes increasingly difficult. That is because the level keeps changing; as there is less demand for coal, so—as we have seen at Monktonhall, a profitable pit—people are made redundant, not because the coal has run out but because of the scale of the economies.
The subsidies per tonne to the British coal industry are the lowest in western Europe, and production costs are also the lowest. I therefore urge the Government to move away from their policy of confrontation. In particular I urge Mr. Ian MacGregor not to take action in the coalfields that could damage the industry. I hope that he will not follow at the NCB the path he followed at the British Steel Corporation, which resulted in 100,000 steel workers being put in the dole queue.
In other words, I hope that Mr. MacGregor will not try any practice of having ballots—[Interruption.] I put it to Conservative Members that this is a matter for the union concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] It is not a matter for Mr. MacGregor, and if he wants to have real conflict in the coalfields, that is the way to go about it. I urge him to be extremely cautious.
Another major factor causing uncertainty in the industry is the lack of a long-term energy strategy. Recent reports from the Sizewell B inquiry highlight that. There does not seem to have been any assessment made by the Government as to whether extra capacity is needed. The electricity industry appears to be pre-empting the results of the inquiry. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that he will not allow orders for hardware to be

placed in advance of the outcome of the inquiry, which we hope will be to reject the building of the pressurised water reactor.
A further example of the lack of Government strategy is the scale-down of the development of the liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr, which is particularly disappointing. Will the Minister put more investment into that development, because that is where investment is needed? The industry is taking seriously the long-term interests of the nation. It is a shame that the Government do not do the same. When the Secretary of State spoke of "Plan for Coal" and the investment programme, he did not point out that the three factors that he took are not even. The investment is a long-lead programme, because, as the Minister knows, it takes years to develop. Therefore, we cannot equate each factor with the other on an equal basis. Therefore, the investment programme and its development are crucial, not for this decade but for the next.
Lack of planning is evident in the recent different announcements on privatisation by members of the Government. It is significant that the Secretary of State had nothing to say about this today. It is unbelievable that privatisation of the coal industry could be contemplated. In a parliamentary reply on 4 July 1983, the Secretary of State for Energy appeared to rule this out. Since then, we have had a major speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 1 November, which said that the privatisation of the coal industry is a serious option. Does the Secretary of State endorse the views of the Financial Secretary or will he again assure the House that the Government will take no such steps? Does he endorse his reply of 4 July or does he accept the Financial Secretary's statement of 1 November? We are entitled to a reply because the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State, not the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Peter Walker: When I last spoke, I said that if the National Union of Mineworkers or any other such group of workers approached me as to the possibility of privatisation, I should carefully consider it.

Mr. Orme: That is no answer—that is an evasion. The Secretary of State is obviously not prepared to take a stand on this issue. Privatisation would be disastrous for the industry, allowing uncontrollable market forces to govern an already fragmented energy policy. It would threaten health and safety in the industry, and threaten jobs and the unions. We are always being told how good the private capital market is at financing industry. However, the City will not even finance Inmos, the firm that makes silicon chips and is Britain's best chance of a winner since the jet engine—we all know what happened to that. What chance is there that the City would bother to take an interest in the coal industry? It is more interested in lending its money abroad to countries such as Mexico, Brazil and Argentina.
The Labour party will oppose any such policies at every stage. We support the stand of the National Union of Mineworkers against such proposals. Coal is vital to the British economy and must remain in public ownership in the national interest.

Mr. Woodall: Would my right hon. Friend care to point out that the traditional enemies of the miners before 1947 were the colliery owners, and even after 1947 it took two or three decades to wear away that continual irritation between the miner and the boss? Even now, when we have


unanimity in the industry, with the unions and Coal Board trying to work together, there is the threat from the Conservative party, which wants to go back to the good old days when miners were scared to death of colliery bosses.

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend, and he will recollect that the interest charges on compensation were a heavy burden, and have remained so for a long time.
Another important factor to consider when debating the coal industry and its future is the fact that the United Kingdom is virtually at its peak production of North sea oil. From now on, it is downhill all the way. The balance of payments is collapsing already because we import too many manufactured goods. We shall need all the coal we can dig if we are to avoid more deflation and more unemployment. The coal industry will become central to our energy needs.

Mr. Woodall: For the next 300 years.

Mr. Orme: Marketing and imports are also vital to the future and should be considered as part of any future energy strategy. By far the most important market for the NCB is the Central Electricity Generating Board. In 1982–83—these figures illustrate the point clearly—the NCB produced 105 million tonnes while the CEGB consumed 81 million tonnes. Recently the agreement has been renegotiated to cover a minimum of only 17 million tonnes a year. Therefore, the NCB is trying to widen its market, but moves to convert to coal are proving to be a fiasco. The arrangements for the boiler conversion grants finish at the end of the year, as the Secretary of State is aware. While the Bill does not deal specifically with this matter, it is important for the industry to know whether the Secretary of State is considering an extension of this scheme.
Concern has been expressed to me by my hon. Friends, and not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) about the import of special coals. Can the Secretary of State confirm that 340,000 tonnes of anthracite was imported in the year 1982–83 to meet the domestic shortages? Will he further confirm that the British Steel Corporation last year imported 2 million tonnes of coking coal? What is he doing to ensure that such levels of imports are reduced, and that the products of British mines are used, especially by the nationalised industries? This is central to the demand for coal, and, not least, it is linked to the rundown in the steel industry.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact, reported in the annual report of the NCB, that the two types of coal to which he has referred, high grade metallurgical coking coal and various types of anthracite, are imported because they are not produced here?

Mr. Orme: My information from the Coal Board is that if it had the finance and the facilities, the coal and the anthracite are there and could be mined.
We need clarification on all these points. I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned from China to take part in the debate on the Cabinet's decision on gas and electricity prices, which will affect the cost of energy and the demand for coal. From what we are told in Cabinet leaks, electricity prices are still negotiable. Increases in both gas and electricity prices are unnecessary and are a brutal cut in public expenditure that will cause tremendous

hardship to the least well-off in our society. The Secretary of State might be able to provide some clarification, because last year electricity profits, after interest had been paid, were £332 million. Neither the electricity industry nor the gas industry wants any price increase. However, the Government are proceeding with this policy because their public expenditure cuts are necessary to make way for tax cuts. This is completely unacceptable.
We are deeply worried about the industry, with its precious national assets. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) referred to our 300 years supply of coal. This is something that many nations do not have. A country with the physical resources of oil, gas and coal should have an energy policy that will create wealth for all the people, and a successful coal industry is central to that demand. Unfortunately, the Government appear to be working to weaken, rather than strengthen, their energy policy. We shall fight to defend the industry and for an energy policy that is acceptable to the British people. We shall continue to put that case in the House.

Mr. Andy Stewart: It is my privilege and honour to be the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Sherwood. It is, without doubt, one of the few constituencies that do not need to be placed geographically. On a few occasions I have had to say that it is not in Scotland, and I cannot imagine why. Sherwood forest is the home of Robin Hood, an original Conservative, who protected people from excessive State taxation and who was helped in times of stress by his lovely lady, Maid Marian. It must be an advantage to mention an eternal maid in one's maiden speech. I am almost the last of the new Members to address the House, and I remind those who have already spoken about the story of the race between the hare and the tortoise.
The Sherwood constituency was formed from the former constituencies of Newark, Carlton and Ashfield, whose Members are in the House today. I thank them. on behalf of their previous constituents. They are my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Sir P. Holland) who is master of the quango hunt, with numerous kills to his credit, and we wish him many more; my old Nottinghamshire county council colleague, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), who is renowned for his convictions, political philosophy and compassion that come straight from the heart; and lastly, but not least, my Member of Parliament and Friend, the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) to whom the new Back- Bench Members will be eternally grateful for highlighting their plight to the House when he found them working from the cloakroom floor. The esteem in which these hon. Members were held by their constituents was duly reflected in their majorities at the June election.
My constituency starts north of Nottingham, being equally divided by the A614. The rolling bunter-sand lands are farmed by some of the country's most expert farmers. A week's drought is a crisis that is overcome by skilful cropping and irrigation. The population, with the exception of the 22,000 inhabitants of Hucknall, live in small towns and villages. One name that is synonymous with Hucknall is Rolls-Royce, where one of that company's many famous inventions, the "flying bedstead", was designed and built. This, in turn, has given us the world-famous Harrier fighter aircraft.


Sherwood is a constituency that is steeped in history and is visited by thousands of tourists every year when they go the ancestral homes of Lord Byron of Newstead Abbey and the Savilles of Rufford. Standing in the middle of the constituency is Sherwood forest and the legendary major oak.
It is appropriate during the debate on the Coal Industry Bill that I should speak as the Member for the largest mining constituency in the United Kingdom with 10 collieries, two major workshops and two area headquarters with a total of about 15,000 employees. The output from this part of the Nottinghamshire coalfield is 8,400,000 tonnes representing 8 per cent. of the national coal output. This highlights the record of efficiently produced coal and a profit that gives the rest of the industry an example to follow.
Efficiency must be judged against a yardstick. Two pits —Monktonhall near Edinburgh and Bilsthorpe near my home—are each producing over 1 million tonnes under almost the same geological and working conditions. The similarities stop there. The operation at Monktonhall requires 2,800 men; Bilsthorpe has 50 per cent. fewer workers, with 1,400 men, making production costs, at £28 a tonne, the same as for open-cast mining.
Hon. Members may be excused if they think that the difference between the two is the work force—that is not so; they are almost one and the same, but 68 per cent. of the men in Nottinghamshire are transferees, the majority being Scots and Geordies. Where does the difference lie? I suggest that it is an attitude of mind. Men who, like many of us, reach to new horizons, came from worked-out pits that were often difficult and dangerous. They came looking for new prosperity for themselves and their families, without prejudice from the past. This new wealth from their efforts has enabled them to become home owners—almost 52 per cent. —in their villages and in commuter villages in the neighbourhood. This welcome social mix has made many people in Nottinghamshire aware of the needs and complexities of the coal industry.
With the difficulty about wages, unsolicited advice by people with no knowledge of the industry does more harm than good, and I ask the chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. MacGregor, to be patient and not to depart from the usual procedures on wages negotiations. At the weekend, I received information from the coalfields and the clubs that the men will demand a ballot on the wage offer sooner rather than later. I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who, in answer to a question on Thursday, made it clear that the Government's position is that the industry is not for privatising. This reduced the scaremongering by people who should have known better to the level of nothing more than "another secret document revealed".
Private investment in the support industries is taking place in Nottinghamshire. The small proportion of work being done by private contractors is beneficial to the industry. The Government's record on investment in new capacity exceeds the targets in "Plan for Coal" that was introduced in 1974 by the Labour Government and supported by the Conservatives with a proposed investment of £6,500 million by 1985. This target has already been exceeded by £600 million. These new pits, that are worked by the young technocrats who are now

being recruited with qualifications that are fit to take them on to higher education, will ensure production records and will follow the examples set by the miners of Sherwood. These men know that our and their prosperity, including the prospects of the unemployed, start with coal at a price that produces low-cost energy, giving this country's manufacturers the edge over their foreign competitors.
On my fact-finding and educational visits to the collieries in my constituency, I found that mining is a young man's job. I ask my right hon. Friend to reduce the official retirement age for underground workers further at the earliest moment and to ensure that those whose services are no longer required receive adequate severance payments.
Many who might come into this category have not shared in the industry's recent prosperity or the right to home ownership because of their age, but they were the backbone of the work force when the industry was being written off as unnecessary during the 1960s.
Yesterday I visited the "black diamond" of Sherwood —Thoresby colliery—the most efficient pit in Europe. It produces 2 million tonnes per year with an operational profit of £28 million. It is my view that our coal industry has a great future. It will have an even greater one if it is manned by men of vision such as the men of Sherwood, who returned a Conservative candidate as their first Member of Parliament.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on his maiden speech. Although he is a member of the National Farmers Union, he has certainly started to get a grasp of mining. He had some idea of the problems faced by the industry, but I cannot say that for the Secretary of State.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) —[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—mentioned Slater Walker. That was an episode not long ago during the Secretary of State's career. The Secretary of State also served for a time in the Department of the Environment. Last week we were told from the Dispatch Box that he was in China. He does not have a clue about mining. I put that to him straight.
I have served for 35 years in mining and other Opposition Back-Bench Members have served for donkey's years in mining. The problem is that Conservative Members have had their connections with the management of industry. Many of them have been directors of this, that and the other company and have been associated with firms that have failed. Yet the Government suggest that they know how to deal with the future of coal mining.
I am convinced that the Government are preparing to sell off the coal industry. If one studies many of the public industries that have been sold off or are being prepared to be sold off by this Administration, it is plain that this industry is being lined up for similar treatment. The miners are being led to the slaughter by the Government.
The problem is so great that a meeting took place recently between all the bodies within the mining industry to study the position and to draw up a formula for the defence of mining. The management of the National Coal Board participated in that meeting for the first time. The bodies included the British Association of Colliery Management, the NUM, the Colliery Office Staff


Association and the National Association of Colliery Overmen Deputies and Shotfirers. They all agreed to stand four square behind the mining industry.
If we study the many suggestions made by the Government, the future of mining appears to be pretty bleak. The Government have an energy programme that will involve a hard core of nuclear power stations, the PWRs, which have not been proved in the United States. We have decided to buy them because the United States no longer wants them. The Minister nods and laughs, but that happens to be true.
There was the Three Mile Island incident in the United States where thousands of people were convinced that they should leave the area, but still the Government are prepared to install PWRs here.
I picked up a copy of last night's Nottingham Evening Post in the Tea Room today in which there is an amazing report headed:
City would not survive N-war says top report.
A Government report predicts that if there was a nuclear explosion we would have
A coal-based economy with steam-engines back in use.
If that is what the Government say, why are they going down their present path? The National Coal Board is not making the decisions; the Department of Energy is telling it what it should do. Mr. MacGregor has his marching orders. I will pay his fare back to the United States—provided, of course, that he does not go on Concorde.
Although the Government have made their plan, they say that we would return to coal and steam if there were a nuclear war. If we continue to tread the Government's path, I am convinced that we shall return to the days, not long past, when we went cap in hand to the middle east for its oil. The middle east would hold us to ransom, as it did before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) correctly said that beneath our feet there is enough solid fuel to last for 300 years. Robin Hood has been mentioned in relation to Sherwood, which is a beautiful area. There is a great deal of coal there in high-production units.
The Secretary of State criticised and savaged members of the mining industry for not pulling up their socks and putting in a real effort. Not many days ago in the House, I said that there are pits in my area that regularly break output records. There are similar pits throughout the country. Why does the Secretary of State criticise mining and the people involved with it? The reason is that he knows nothing about it. It is high time that he went round the mines, as the Under-Secretary does, see what it is all about.
We have record breakers who will continue to be record breakers, but if the Government continue with their policy of further pit closures the unemployment queue will be increased. Robin Hood, unlike the Government, helped people in need. There are many sections of the population who are not being helped by the Government, particularly the disabled. I hope that the Government will support the Emphysema Compensation Bill on Friday. The Bill will affect the many miners who have been seriously injured in the pits. I maintain that Robin Hood was a true Socialist. He was certainly not a Scottish Conservative.
If we examine the facts and figures as presented by the Government, we learn that the costs of erection, installation and the rest incurred in providing a nuclear power station are nearly three times those of a coal-fired

power station. The Government tell us that money is not available to undertake certain projects. At the same time, they are prepared to support the present programme of building nuclear power stations. That is one method by which the Government are preparing to sell off the economic pits to the rich.
I wish to deal with the problem of uneconomic pits. A classic example is the Sherwood pit in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) which many years ago was uneconomic owing to geographical difficulties. The chairman of the National Coal Board at that time wished to close the pit. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the National Coal Board shows that the Sherwood pit is now making a profit of £6·5 million annually. That shows how circumstances can change within the mining industry. A pit may be uneconomic one year and later become economic and make its contribution to the nation.
Conservative Members are wrong to say that the mining industry has failed the nation. The industry has made its contribution by making a profit every year since the first day of nationalisation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) made it clear that the industry's problem is caused by the interest repayments which have crippled the coal mining industry.
The NCB recently closed a pit in my constituency which had plenty of reserves. It is no good the Secretary of State or any other Minister saying that the pit 'was exhausted. Down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) another pit was working the same seam. Nevertheless, the pit in my constituency was closed. My constituency once had nine pits but now it has only five. The NCB continues to close them while the lads working in the remaining pits continue to break output records. The Government must be much fairer to the mining industry and to those who work in it. I hope that in the not too distant future the Government will change their attitude towards the mining industry.
I welcome the investment in the mining industry, but it is not sufficient. If the Government examined other nations' coal mining industries they would realise that those nations put more into their mining industries than we put into ours. At the same time, our coal mining industry is expected to be competitive. In Germany, subsidies are paid right, left and centre, but that is not the position in England. It is known as investment. Investment is used to look for further reserves, mine those reserves and provide the necessary equipment. The tightening up of available money has prevented management from ordering equipment to enable the mines to keep working 24 hours a day. Machines churn out coal 24 hours a day. Hon. Members do not work 24 hours a day in the House, but the lads at the pit work such hours. Pits work for 24 hours a day to provide the energy requirements of the nation. Given the opportunity, they will continue to do so, but not if they are to be subject to the Government's proposals.
I believe sincerely that the Government are preparing the destruction of certain sectors of the industry and at the same time paving the way for those who have the money to move in, take over the economic pits and line their pockets. Members of Parliament who wish to get their fingers into that pie will be unable to do so, and I welcome that. I do not believe that the Government are giving the coal mining industry the opportunity to prove itself beyond all doubt in the interests of the nation and its future energy requirements.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who made a distinguished and excellent speech. I am certain that in future we shall hear from him many more good speeches on the coal industry. After all, my hon. Friend's constituents include 15,000 miners, most of whom, I daresay, returned my hon. Friend to the House. The Opposition must bear that fact in mind. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that he spent 35 years in the mining industry and knows all about it, but he has not learnt the lessons of the industry's current position. He has not considered the position facing the coal industry in the world.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the incident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power station in the United States, which caused not one death. He made no reference to the fact that in the past 80 years 30,000 Pennsylvanian coal miners had lost their lives as a result of mining accidents, and that in Appalachia, in the United States, 57,000 coal miners suffer from black lung disease. I emphasise that the Three Mile Island incident did not cause a single death. We must be cautious when we refer to nuclear power. I do not wish to discuss that matter as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order.
I wish to explain the coal industry's position. Coal production in 1982 was 125 million tonnes but consumption was only 110 million tonnes. We must remember that we have a saturated market. There are insufficient buyers and overcapacity in the industry. Another significant indicator is stock levels. Today there are 58 million tonnes of stocks compared with 34 million tonnes five years ago.
The truth is staring us in the face. If only the Labour party and the miners would realise that it is no use producing all that coal if there are no buyers. If it cannot be sold abroad or at home, it goes into stock and remains there. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the jobs and the men?"] I shall deal with all those aspects in due course. On the international market thermal value 250-therm steam coal, 15 per cent. ash and 1 per cent. sulphur, deliverable cif to north-west European deep-water ports, is £23, or $35, per tonne, on the spot market. The price ranges from £23 per tonne to £26 or £32 per tonne for higher qualities. Naturally, the impact on the German economy is substantial. The German industry is heavily subsidised and the Germans must now decide what to do about the present predicament. The same applies to France. Other countries are beginning to face the facts. When will the United Kingdom begin to face facts?

Mr. Peter Hardy: As a passionate supporter of the European Community, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Community has imported coal of that quality from South Africa. Does he expect us to believe that it is appropriate for Europe to allow its own coal industries to disappear so that it may buy cheap coal from a dubious source while at the same time expecting British farmers to support a common agricultural policy which achieves exactly the result for other countries that a common energy policy could achieve for Britain?
Is it wise for Europe to develop such a reliance on imported coal as the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Mr. Skeet: No, Sir. The Select Committee report puts it rather well:

In 1981, for example, the losses incurred in 30 of the Board's older collieries totalled some £228 million, equivalent to 90 per cent. of the industry's operating deficit in that year.
If a few totally unprofitable pits reaching the end of their natural life were closed, the industry could become viable, but if we try to retain those pits the industry will never be viable. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many pits?] Perhaps I may continue as most of the points will be rounded up later in my speech. The Trans-Natal Coal corporation has said:
Coal stockpiles of consumers are full to overflowing worldwide
and:
export prices are not expected to improve before 1985.
If world prices are not expected to improve that will not be to the advantage of the United Kingdom. It will be even more difficult to sell our coal internationally, so if we cannot sell it at home we shall be in dire trouble.
When the 1980 legislation came before the House the Government said that it was designed to reduce the operating grants and to return the industry to viability by 1983–84. The Secretary of State said today that the industry would be viable in two years' time. Personally, I should like to believe that, but I cannot.
According to my calculations, between 1973–74 and 1982–83 capital investment in the industry totalled £4,260 million. The grants poured into the industry totalled a further £2,118·9 million. When one adds to that about £865 million in write-offs, one realises that more than £7 billion has been poured into the industry in that period.
Let us consider what could have been done with £7 billion. Between 1976 and 1982 £3 billion was spent on North sea exploration, which has added 5 per cent. to the gross national product. North sea oil provides much income for the nation. Yet the United Kingdom is in debt. The National Coal Board is the Mexico or Brazil of the British economy.
Let us take another example. Between 1977–78 and 1983–84 overseas aid was £5·9 billion. The sum in question could have been spent helping to lift the standard of living of people in other countries. Does that not commend itself to Labour Members?
I am a reasonable man. I wish to help the mining industry. I have recommended that the Vale of Belvoir project should be assisted. I have recommended help for Selby, which currently has great problems with water. I hope that such projects will be a success because I believe that they are potentially profitable.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report shows that north Nottinghamshire has an output per man-shift not of 2·2 tonnes but of 5·12 tonnes at Thoresby, 4·13 tonnes at Welbeck, 4·16 tonnes at Ollerton and 3·88 tonnes at Sherwood. If our entire coal industry could achieve outputs of that magnitude, and we are moving towards that situation, the industry would become viable very rapidly. As I understand it, that is precisely the Government's policy.

Mr. Woodall: Does not the hon. Gentleman support the Vale of Belvoir project because the National Coal Board promised to transport the colliery waste to Bedfordshire to fill in the empty clay pits there, thus making that land more attractive and viable?

Mr. Skeet: As I have said before, if the NCB is prepared to pay the transportation charges — [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] The Bedfordshire local authorities cannot be expected to pay them as the material is coming


from another area, but if the board will pay the charges we should be only too glad to receive the colliery waste. It would fill in the knot-holes and provide more agricultural land. It has been our consistent policy to try to assist the coal industry in any enterprise that we consider would be profitable.
I shall be brief, as hon. Members on both sides should have the opportunity to put their views, but I should refer to one or two minor matters. There is much talk of closures. Hon. Members will recollect that there have been closures in shipbuilding, steel, refining and petrochemicals. In the United Kingdom, as in France and Germany, those industries have been scaled down to a suitable size to make them viable. Why should the United Kingdom mining industry be exempt? Why are we told that no pit should be closed until the reserves are exhausted? If pits are entirely unprofitable—with production costs at £60 or £70 per tonne they will never make a profit—the only solution may be to close a few of them. However, it is entirely for the National Coal Board to make the selection.
I recently attended a conference at which it was said that in Germany it had been decided to cut back Ruhrkole capacity by 10 million tonnes to about 80 million tonnes per year to make the industry viable. Mine closures are not new to the United Kingdom. In 1965 to 1970, in the era of Lee, Marsh, Gunter and Mason there were 263 closures. During the era of Varley and Benn, between 1974 and 1979, there were another 32 closures.

Mr. Rowlands: What is the hon. Gentleman's argument about, then?

Mr. Skeet: I am merely observing that the Labour party has presided over substantial closures. If it recognises the need for such closures it should not criticise the chairman of the NCB or the Secretary of State for hinting that something must happen today.

Mr. Lofthouse: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the mining industry's production capacity should be cut back? How many men would then be needed in the coal industry to produce that capacity?

Mr. Skeet: I should have to examine the number of men involved carefully.

Mr. Rowlands: It would involve the closure of 70 pits.

Mr. Skeet: The figures that I am giving appear in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission document.

Mr. Rowlands: What is the hon. Gentleman suggesting?

Mr. Skeet: I shall make my suggestions later. There are 141 loss-making collieries. I would certainly not accept closures on that scale. It involves a sizeable manpower figure. I should have thought that closure of 30 pits is a maximum. Such closures will have to be achieved through negotiation and the number actually closed might be only 20. That would make the industry competitive.
There have been transfers of miners from one part of the country to another. For example, when production at the Vale of Belvoir starts in earnest, men will be transferred there from other parts of Leicestershire. I dare say that if another major pit is opened in Wales, men will be transferred there from other pits that are going out of production. That makes good sense.

Mr. Lofthouse: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that 40,000 men should lose their jobs?

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman has put a figure on it. I am not doing that. I am prepared to look up the figures involved. Some job losses will be carried by natural wastage. The Government have given a guarantee to younger miners that they will be kept in employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] Can Opposition Members tell me of one industry in which employees are given a better future than are miners? Top salaries in the mining industry are much higher than in any other industrial undertaking.

Mr. Lofthouse: But there are no jobs for the young men now.

Mr. Skeet: There are jobs. I am complaining about the ossified attitude of Opposition Members. They are backing the National Union of Mineworkers in its call for the banning of imports of coal and its demand that there be no closures unless pits have been exhausted.
My final plea is for hon. Members to be reasonable. It is not the Government's money but taxpayers' money that is involved. We have poured millions of pounds into the industry and we are not getting a satisfactory return on it. As I understand it, the Government are trying to make the industry economic. I should have thought that, rather than oppose that move, the Opposition would earnestly support it.

Mr. Jack Dormand (Essington): I shall be brief, as many of my hon. Friends wish to speak.
What the Secretary of State said was as ominous as what he did not say. He did not address himself at all to the industry's problems today. He referred frequently to what was happening in 1973. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) properly told him that what appertained a decade ago is not true for 1983. My right hon. Friend did not get a satisfactory reply. Perhaps there is not one. If there were more time, I should have enlarged on that point.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) made his usual tirade against the coal industry. I have never heard a more irrelevant speech on the coal industry. He simply fails to recognise the social implications of the state of the industry. Why should we be surprised—he is the epitome of Tory economic theory and of capitalism. For him, if the industry is not making a profit, that is that. I come from as hard hit an area in county Durham as anyone. We have had our share of pit closures. Their effect on the community is devastating, not merely for the industry but for those who depend on it.
I hope that we shall hear no more facile criticism of miners which we so often hear from Conservative Members. Whatever improvements there have been in the mining industry, a coal miner's job remains a dirty, dangerous and disagreeable one. The Labour party needs no lectures from Conservative Members on it. No one recognises the problems that face the coal industry more than the miners. However, those problems require deeper scrutiny than they are normally given.
The large stocks of coal are frequently referred to. Several factors have created those stocks. No one should criticise miners' performance. I shall refer to performance in the north-east. The region's 20 collieries finished the


year ending 31 March in record breaking style. They bettered their weekly productivity record by 1 per cent. by producing at a rate of 2·33 tonnes per man-shift. They also increased the annual average by 1 per cent. to 2·09 tonnes per man-shift. Moreover, the weekly record has been broken twice since March. Therefore, there can be no question of miners in the north-east resting on their laurels. That applies to miners who work in other coalfields.
We can say with confidence that the miners are playing their part in increasing productivity. It is a pity that the Government have not played their part. I accept that there has been substantial investment in the industry —it it is implied in the Bill—but the Government's disastrous economic policies have created an industrial desert. In huge areas, speaking geographically and figuratively, the country is an industrial desert. If that were not the case, there would have been much greater use of coal. If we had had the expansionist policies that are advocated by my party rather than the results of the cripplingly restrictive monetarism of the Government, the coal industry would have been in a much happier state.
Too little effort has been put into promoting the sale of coal. There must be a change to the use of coal in coal-rich countries such as Britain and in the rest of the industrial world. The potential for coal use in the industrial sectors of the 24 OECD countries would be as high as 1 billion tonnes a year by the year 2000. I take my figures from Lord Ezra. I hope that the House will recognise him as sufficient authority. Such coal use would represent a growth of 5 per cent. a year on present consumption of 343 million tonnes a year.
I welcome the Government's 1981 innovation to provide grants to firms that want to convert to coal. However, the original scheme was too narrow. I am glad that it has been improved. No one can be satisfied with the results so far. The Government must examine the scheme more closely to assess where it fails and to determine how improvements can be made.
As the Minister knows, I always try to be constructive. Let me make three suggestions. First, I suggest that the grant should be increased from 25 per cent. We hear rumours that it will be decreased. If that is true, we should be told about it, and I hope that the Minister will do so when he replies to the debate. Second, the scheme should be extended beyond December 1983. Third, and perhaps most important, the scheme should apply to the whole public sector. The scheme would be much more effective if it took in the extra demand for coal, for example, in schools, hospitals and public buildings.
One could not say that the CBI was exactly affiliated to the Labour party, but let me quote its view on the matter. I quote from one of its documents:
From a long term energy policy point of view we believe that it is in the national interest to encourage the use of coal. Therefore, in order to maintain the impetus which the coal firing grant scheme"—
that is the scheme that I am talking about—
has created, the CBI would welcome additional funds being made available when the present allocation expires. In addition to acting as a useful incentive to decision making both schemes would help towards widening the market for coal".
When the document says "both schemes" it is referring to the ECSC loan scheme, of which I am sure the House is aware. I hope, therefore, that some attention will be given to this matter.
Before he became chairman of the National Coal Board, Mr. MacGregor said that when he became chairman he would launch a sales drive. I have not seen much evidence of it. I hope that he has not forgotten that promise, because it is of the greatest importance to our industry. I am pleased to see the Minister nodding his head. It may well be that the CEGB and the big industrial users of coal are looking for bargain prices from the NCB. As a one-off sale, that might be a good idea, at least in the immediate future. In any case, the chairman of the NCB should concentrate on that aspect of his work, not on how many pits he can close. I repeat that the need for a new dynamic sales drive, including exports, is crucial in dealing with the industry's present problems.
These matters also relate to the Venice summit of 1980. We do not hear too much about that these days. I remind the House that the Heads of Government of the seven leading industrial nations of the West, together with representatives of the EC, met to attempt to reach agreement on a co-ordinated restructuring of energy demand. The aim was to free their economies from excessive dependence on oil, because that would mean a substantial increase in the use of coal. We are therefore entitled to ask, after three years, what contribution this Government have made to that end. There has been a dearth of information on this subject, and many of us suspect that the Government are dragging their feet. I suggest that the Minister should make a comprehensive statement in the near future about the British Government's contribution to the targets that were set by the Venice declaration.
There are two matters that I frequently raise in the House. Some people may regard them as peripheral, and to some extent they are, bearing in mind the major problems that now face the industry. However, I do not apologise for mentioning them again. The first is the effect of coal production on the environment. It seems obvious to most people that special measures should be taken in coal-producing areas to protect the conditions in which the inhabitants live. The matter is so important that the powerful Flowers committee was set up to study the issue, and its report is the strongest possible argument for action to be taken to counteract the effects of producing coal. The Government have done almost nothing to implement the committee's recommendations, although I hasten to thank the Under-Secretary of State for giving money to set up at least the machinery to clear the blackened beaches in my constituency. He did that when he was at the Department of the Environment. He visited the beaches with me, but I have to tell him that it will be a long time before we see the golden glory of those beaches again. However, at least a beginning has been made, and none of his tight-fisted colleagues in the Government saw fit to deal with the problem. I hope that that praise does not go to the hon. Gentleman's head, because much remains to be done.
The Flowers report is a frightening document but it demonstrates with boldness and great clarity what has to be done. I urge the Minister to convene regular meetings with his ministerial colleagues to monitor what is being achieved in the face of these great problems.

Mr. Skeet: The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting speech. To deal with sulphur dioxide from coal would involve an expenditure by the CEGB of no less than


£4 billion, and that would put up the price of coal considerably. Further, it would be extremely expensive to remove nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide.

Mr. Dormand: The hon. Gentleman again demonstrates his typical view of these matters. I have lived in a coal-producing area all my life, and those of us who live there say that it is the responsibility of society as a whole. It is not a matter for individual industries. On this, it is clear that we fundamentally disagree, but that is how a Labour Government, after the next election, will tackle the problem.
To finish what I was saying, the Minister will find that precious little has been carried out so far, and I hope he will agree — I hope that the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North will also agree—that the rest of the country owes a debt to the people who have to live in such an environment.
The other matter that I want to raise—I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East touched on it in his speech— is the need for greater attention to the liquefaction of coal. We very much appreciated the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who used to speak on coal matters on behalf of the Opposition. This was one of his main interests. By "greater attention" I mean two things: first, more resources; and second, a much greater determination on the part of the Government to develop what is, after all, an exciting project.
This is not the occasion on which to argue the case for liquefaction of coal. Indeed, the case has already been made, and I think that the Government accept the principle, judging by what they have done so far. However, they are guilty of being doctrinaire in the matter. They insisted on private capital being put into the project and then, when the promises of such capital were withdrawn, the project was slowed Sown. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer), who has Point of Ayr in his constituency, may agree with that, at least in principle. I do not say that there are no problems, but they are far from insuperable. What is lacking is the will to press on with the development. The National Coal Board is enthusiastic, as the Minister knows, but rightly insists that more money and encouragement should be given by the Government. The time could not be more opportune, in my view, for this country to take the lead in a process that will be commonplace by the end of the century. Clearly there is much to be said for being the first in the field, particularly when a comparatively small sum of money is involved. I look forward to questioning the Minister many more times on this matter.
The Bill recognises some of the continuing needs of the coal industry. Not only are the policies important, but the way in which they are carried out is of the utmost importance, and it is fundamental to their success that the Government and the NCB retain the absolute confidence of the miners. Those of us who are privileged to live among them, and who come from mining families, know that they are among the most responsible members of society. Their record over generations shows that they have made a substantial and vital contribution to the well-being of the nation. Many of them have paid a high price in broken health and broken limbs in making that contribution. It is therefore only just that the needs of their industry should be properly recognised.
The appointment of the present chairman of the NCB was one of the Government's most savage acts. His threats about pit closures are based to a large extent on the fact that he has no allegiance to this nation. Before long he will disappear from our shores with a large transfer fee in his pocket. He will have £1·5 million safely tucked away. If the Government do not act quickly, he will leave behind him in the mining communities a trail of devastation unparalleled in the history of the industry. I hope that the Minister will heed the many warnings that have been and will be given by Opposition Members today. The country owes a great debt to mining and the miners, and it is up to the Government to ensure that that debt is paid.

Mr. Francis Maude: Many Conservative Members now represent constituencies with substantial mining interests.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Where are they?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), who represents the largest coal mining constituency in the country, made an excellent speech. My constituency contains the whole of the Warwickshire coalfield. There are four pits employing some 5,500 men. Despite the fact that two of the pits are nearing the end of their lives—though they have not yet reached that point—I am happy to say that overall the coalfield is profitable. The miners in my constituency are concerned that there should be investment in the future of the industry and, in particular, in the development of the south Warwickshire prospect. That profitable new development could replace the aging pits in the north of the coalfield. Above all, however, the Warwickshire miners are hard-headed, moderate and realistic. They know in their hearts—and they are not afraid to say—that uneconomic pits are dragging down the whole coal industry in Britain.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said that the performance of pits can vary from year to year. That is correct. It would be folly to close a pit on the basis of one year's performance, and it is absurd to suggest that the chairman of the NCB would do any such thing. He will consider the performance' of pits over the past few years. Among other things, he will consider the way in which the work force has co-operated in developing new working practices to make the pits more profitable.
The miners in my constituency know that the development coin—the investment coin—has two sides. Money must be put into new fields and existing pits must be made more profitable, but, on the other side, old and uneconomic pits have to be closed. We have been asked how many pits must be closed. The number need not be very large. It need not be anywhere near the 252 pits closed between 1964 and 1970 by the Labour Government.

Mr. Lofthouse: Could the hon. Gentleman tell the House how many miners were made redundant during that period?

Mr. Maude: The hon. Member can find that figure as easily as I can. Nearly half the number of pits that existed in 1964 had been closed by 1970.
Producing coal is not an end in itself. Opposition Members occasionally talk as though it is desirable in itself that men should go underground to raise coal that is not


needed, as though it is a wonderful thing to have a vast stockpile of coal. Coal mining is not a social service. It is an industry that exists to raise from the ground coal that people want to buy. If no one wants to buy the coal, there is no point in bringing it to the surface.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why we have huge stockpiles of coal—there is now 55 million tonnes and the figure is growing all the time — is that we are spending far too much money in importing fuel? That is the source of the problem. We have not developed techniques for burning coal more efficiently. If money had been invested in such activities over the years, we might not have huge piles of coal. It would have been used.

Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we export twice as much coal as we import.
The whole House is committed to the future of the coal mining industry. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) mentioned the possibilities of the liquefaction of coal. There is no doubt that that has an enormous future.
This country must have a coal mining industry. The Bill provides for enormous investment in the future of the coal mining industry. It is astonishing that the Second Reading of a Bill which will greatly increase investment in the coal mining industry should be used by the Opposition as an opportunity for attacking the Government. One Labour Member has referred to the Bill as being the result of monetarist policy. The Government are to invest over £1 billion a year in the capital future of the industry and to subsidise it to the extent of £600 million a year in operating and other grants. Anyone who considers that that is monetarism must be standing on his head.
"Plan for Coal" made clear what the future of coal might be. That future has not come about, but it is absurd to suggest that that is the result of inadequate investment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear—his figures are beyond dispute—that the amount that this Government are investing in the coal industry is more than was suggested in "Plan for Coal", which was the product of a Labour Government.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) talked as though, through the Bill and other measures, the Government are weakening the industry. That proposition does not bear examination. What could be more enervating than that the investment available to the industry should be poured into pits producing coal at more than twice the price at which it can be sold? There are plenty of pits where coal is produced below the selling price, and many more which are producing it at or just below the selling price. Some pits in America with equivalent geology are producing equivalent amounts of coal with half the number of men, and those men are earning the equivalent of £28,000 a year. It must be the profitable pits and those which are near break-even point which attract the investment. It is the height of folly to pour money into uneconomic pits to produce coal, which is not needed in any event, to swell larger and larger stockpiles. That is throwing money away. I am astonished that that idea should attract any support.
The hon. Member for Easington referred to criticism of the miners by Conservative Members. I have not heard one word of criticism of the miners by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We have the greatest respect for the coal miners

of this country. When we visit coal faces in the pits in our constituencies, we have the opportunity to appreciate fully the difficulties and dangers of the job. Despite mechanisation and the undoubted improvement in conditions, the dangers are still enormous. There is a miner in my constituency whom I know well. He works in one of the most modern and best pits in the country, in Warwickshire. He recently suffered an accident in which he lost an eye. We do not talk glibly about how easy conditions are. We know that mining is difficult, disagreeable and dangerous, and we agree that miners should continue to be the highest earners among all our industries.

Mr. Woodall: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear the Secretary of State say that in the past 10 years miners had increased their productivity by only just over 1 per cent.? If that is not a criticism, what the hell is? We know from the figures that output per man-shift has increased by far more than 1 per cent. year after year, and is now at its highest level ever.

Mr. Maude: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did no more than state the facts. In "Plan for Coal" it was expected that productivity would increase by 4 per cent. per annum. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as we do that in the decade since "Plan for Coal" was produced, total productivity in the industry has increased by slightly more than the annual figure predicted. That is a criticism not of coal miners, but, to some extent, of management in that industry. In many pits, coal miners have played their part in improving work practices.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East spoke about Mr. MacGregor and the possibility of a ballot being imposed on the coal mining industry. Who would not agree that the proper body to hold a ballot on the present pay offer is the National Union of Mineworkers? We would be delighted if that were to happen, but the fact is that it has not happened so far, and there is no prospect of it happening at present. What are Opposition Members doing to persuade their friends in the NUM to hold such a ballot? The miners in Warwickshire are getting fed up with an overtime ban that they do not support. They are losing a lot of money, and they are fed up with being manipulated for political ends. They know that there is no prospect of an increase in the offer. They also know that the action being taken seriously endangers the industry's future.
On Friday I visited a pit in Warwickshire. I shall not tell the House what one of the miners said he would do if Mr. Scargill showed his face in a Warwickshire pit. It involved the use of a mine shaft and gravity. However, I warn Mr. Scargill that the miners in north Warwickshire have had enough of being manipulated for political ends.
The fact is that every Conservative Member is fully committed to the future of the coal industry in Britain. We know that there must be investment. The Bill provides for more investment than for any other nationalised industry. To criticise it for not going fast enough is absurd. The Bill represents a very full commitment to the future development of our coal mining industry. I hope that the House will support it.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr.


Orme) for his comments. For 12 years I was the Front Bench spokesman on coal for my party, both in and out of government. I am told that that record will probably never be repeated, although never is a long time. However, I welcome the opportunity of speaking in the debate.
It is rather depressing to listen to remarks of the sort made by the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude). He indicted not only all the miners in Britain, but those in Europe. We produce the cheapest coal in Europe. It is absurd to suggest that American miners are better than those in Britain or Europe. We are entitled to something more than such sixth-form debating points.

Mr. Maude: rose——

Mr. Eadie: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
We must start to discuss the case for coal. That case has nothing whatever to do with providing miners with jobs, important though that is. The case for an expanding coal industry involves the whole nation, because coal is the only fuel that we have in abundance. All the other fossil fuels are wasting assets. By the 1990s oil will have been reduced to a trickle. By the next century gas resources will have disappeared. However, there is an abundance of coal. We have coal resources that we can identify that will last for more than 300 years. We have pre-planned mining projects which could expand the coal industry. In addition, our technology will certainly improve, and then there will be coal in these islands for more than 2,000 years.
Therefore, the case for coal is that we have that form of energy in abundance. A Government who neglect it do a great disservice not only to the miners but to the whole nation. It makes economic sense to say that a nation that does not have its own energy cannot hope to be an industrial nation or to occupy any position in that industrial league of nations. It must have supplies of energy that are not only abundant, but safe and secure.
This country is blessed with an indigenous and abundant source of energy. Therefore, the case for coal is overwhelming not only from the miners' viewpoint, but from that of the nation. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that she is concerned about the defence of the realm. Indeed, we are all concerned about that. However, it is in the interests of that defence that we should develop our own indigenous source of energy, coal. Can anyone say that the situation in the middle east is anything other than volatile? We know what is happening in Lebanon and that a crisis can rage throughout the middle east for just one night and force the whole Western world almost to its knees. Given what the Prime Minister preaches, the Government must have a duty not to contract the coal industry, but to expand it. That is in the interests of the defence of the realm, of industry and of our people.
Some Conservative Members who are accountants and lawyers seem concerned about the accounts and the cost. However, that expenditure could easily be put on the defence bill. That would make more sense than some of the defence expenditure now being incurred.

Mr. Maude: rose——

Mr. Eadie: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give way. I have a lot to say, and this is the first speech that I have made from the Back Benches for 12 years.
I want to deal not with propaganda, but with the arguments. We have already heard some propaganda tonight. In opening the debate, the Secretary of State's approach was a little cosmetic. He told the House that the Bill proposed extra borrowing for the coal industry. None of us would quarrel about that. However, we would have liked to oppose the Bill or to table an amendment to increase borrowing, but are unable to do so because it is tied to the money resolution. We can reduce the sums. but we cannot increase them. That is one of the reasons for not opposing the Bill.
There is a case for even more investment in the coal industry. I said that the Secretary of State had been a little cosmetic. He spoke about 1973. I went into the Department of Energy in 1974. I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman and I wish that he were in the Chamber to hear me, but when I arrived there in 1974 the undertakers had already arrived for the coal industry. I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's record when he had responsibility for the coal industry. The industry was starved of investment. The right hon. Gentleman said that he gave the nod for Selby, but it was the Labour Government in 1974 who sank that mine. I had to go to Gascoigne Wood to answer all the objections. I had to go to the Cabinet to find funding for the project. I discussed it with the National Coal Board.
Do not let me hear the Secretary of State say that he sank the pit at Selby. The Labour Government were responsible for the investment in Selby. I went there, and was present at the pit's sinking. The Government have a despicable record, for which I attack them. During their period of office from 1979 to 1983 they did not sink one new pit.
The Government have changed to some extent the strategy for coal. They do not have a policy of sinking new pits or opening coalfields. It is a disgrace for the Government to talk about the Vale of Belvoir. If that scheme comes to fruition, there will not be three pits; there will be only one pit. The Government are killing that coalfield financially, before it starts. That is disgraceful.
The Government are pursuing and encouraging what I have described as a black site policy. What do I mean by "a black site policy"? Money is being invested in existing pits. I do not quarrel with that policy; I started it myself. I believe that, if one can find new reserves in a pit and coal seams because of the vast increase in technology, one should capitalise on that investment. It makes good sense to invest in existing pits.
The policy pursued by the Government will cause the contraction of the mining industry. Unless we have a green field site policy, the industry will contract. There must be new coalfields if the industry is to progress. The Government have not sunk a new pit since they came to office. Because they are not pursuing a green field policy, that will inevitably cause the contraction of the coal industry.
We should take account of investment. Eighty-one per cent. of investment—I may be 0·5 per cent. out in my calculations—is in Nottingham, Yorkshire and parts of Derbyshire. The other 19 per cent. must be divided between south Wales, other parts of Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland, Kent and Scotland. Those areas are classified as peripheral.
The policy advocated by the National Coal Board, and encouraged by the Government, will cause the complete destruction of peripheral coalfields. It is their fondest wish


and dream that the mining industry should disappear in south Wales, Derbyshire, Durham, Cumberland and Scotland. They are pursuing a policy of contraction. They may talk about investment, but that investment is not properly divided.
When we consider the areas of coal production in the United Kingdom, the matter seems much more serious for the nation. About 55 per cent. of coal production comes from the areas I have mentioned which benefit from 81 per cent. of the investment. The rest of the coal is produced in areas that receive only 19 per cent. of investment. Was it not a joke when the Secretary of State was chastised when he spoke of anthracite coal? He said, "Oh yes. But when the new investment comes, everything will be all right." We know that Margam is rich. We know that Betws is rich. The Government and the National Coal Board have done nothing about that. Long lead times are involved. It is vandalism to pursue such a policy.
My criticism of Mr. MacGregor is not that he is an old man, which he is, but that he is incompetent. I said when he was appointed as chairman of the NCB that it was a provocative appointment. The mining industry does not want him. According to the standards applied by the Tory party and its arguments on the standards of the market, Mr. MacGregor would have been sacked from the British Steel Corporation. It had lost more money when he left than when he started, never mind the wholesale destruction of manpower in the industry.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) talk about liquefaction. When I was a Minister, I proposed two schemes for liquefaction. I signed an agreement with the NCB and obtained £20 million from the Labour Cabinet to get them started. In relation to liquefaction, the Government have never washed a dish, they have never struck a blow, although we have had plenty of promises.
When he was the Minister responsible for the coal industry the Financial Secretary to the Treasury told me that a Conservative Government would match every penny that the Labour Government promised to start the liquefaction schemes. I know what will happen. A scheme will be started in a country such as Japan, but the Government and Mr. MacGregor will do nothing about it.
When some of my hon. Friends went to see Mr. MacGregor about the liquefaction scheme, he said that he had no intention of reinventing the wheel. He also said that it would not come into being until 20 years after the beginning of next century. Mr. MacGregor is not only an entrepreneur and the chairman of the NCB, but he is posing as a scientific expert. He could say to his kids that oil will not be made from coal for the next 37 years. Every scientist and economist would laugh him out of court for making such a suggestion, but he did make it. It was reported in the press. That is why he is incompetent.
Perhaps the reason why Mr. MacGregor is incompetent is that there has never been a scientist in the NCB since Joe Gibson left. The Minister should say to the NCB that it is time that it had scientific advice. A scientist should advise Mr. MacGregor so that he does not make silly statements.
Mr. MacGregor said that he thought that there could be a market for 200 million tonnes of coal. However, there cannot be a market for 200 million tonnes of coal if coal is not liquefied or gasified. I have said before that I refuse

to believe that after we have invested billions of pounds in a gigantic gas pipeline all over the country we shall forget all about it when gas in the North sea has diminished. Of course we shall gasify coal.
I understand that some exciting things have been happening in the gasification of coal. There is no problem about making synthetic North sea gas. We mastered that technology years ago. We sold some of it to America and kept the patents ourselves. There is a breakthrough, but Mr. MacGregor does not know about it. He is trying to assist the NCB to get the 200 million tonnes. He is incompetent.
When we talk about oil from coal, it is not a Walter Mitty idea. It is not a new technology. It is now being developed in South Africa by Sasol. Incidentally, the technologies invented by the NCB are better than those of Sasol because they are better in the use of coal, but we as a nation are doing nothing about the matter. The Government have dragged their feet all the time. I have said before that making petrol and oil from coal is nothing new. Most of the aeroplanes that came over from Germany during the last war and knocked hell out of us in Clydebank, in Coventry and in London flew on petrol derived from coal. We are not talking about a new technology, although one would think when listening to the National Coal Board and the Government that it was.
The Secretary of State talked cosmetically about the pit closure programme for contraction of the industry. The House must understand that the average age of miners in the coal industry is lower than ever, at about 38·7. It is the declared policy of the National Coal Board to get rid of 70,000 men. That is on the record and there cannot be any argument about it. The board will not be able to do so simply by getting rid of men over the age of 50. The board will be saying that men over the age of 30 will have to leave the industry because of the policy which is being pursued. I know it is tied to the economic policy of the Government, but it is dishonest for Conservative Members to suggest that there are great prospects in the mining industry if we go ahead with the policy that the National Coal Board is pursuing.
In my area the miners at Monktonhall were out on strike for eight weeks and I resented it bitterly. I have always believed in conciliation rather than confrontation. I believe in argument and discussion. In this debate I have tried to put forward arguments which should at least be considered. In the first week of that dispute I, together with my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) put forward proposals to settle the dispute. They were discussed for two and a half hours. Those proposals would not have suited everybody but they would have ended the strike. My constituents in Midlothian were on the sticks for eight weeks and suffered terribly. When they went back to work it was more or less on the proposals that we had put forward.
I say to Mr. MacGregor and his faceless bureaucrats in Hobart House that they bear a heavy responsibility for the suffering of the miners in Midlothian, who will not have a good Christmas. Mr. MacGregor and his officials should feel ashamed that they allowed that strike to go on for eight weeks. How can they expect to have good industrial relations?
Last Friday I went to the miners' treat at Monktonhall. In the mining industry we never forget the old folk. To organise a treat for 1,000 people requires much work. Do


hon. Members know what the National Coal Board has done? It has withdrawn facilities for the union and the social committee to organise the old folks' treat. Mr. MacGregor is an old man. It is a disgrace that he should be associated with that policy and that he should be punishing the old people in my constituency by non-co-operation.
The coal industry is a great industry. We must get rid of people like Mr. MacGregor. We must preserve a policy of green field site investment. We must sell more coal abroad and introduce all the new technologies. There must be a policy of liquefaction and gasification of coal, not just to suit the miners but because it is the right thing to do in the interests of the nation. I long for the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East will be the Secretary of State for Energy and when a Labour Government will pursue these policies in the interests not only of the miners but of the whole nation.

Sir Anthony Meyer: The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who for 12 years spoke with immense distinction and authority in the House for the coal industry, has made a great speech; the whole House listened to him spellbound. I say that it was a great speech, but I do not say that it was a sensible speech. Indeed, I disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say. All of us, particularly on the Government side of the House, should recognise the passion and the conviction with which the hon. Gentleman spoke. He was speaking on behalf of the miners. No one on this side of the House has come to appreciate the miners more than I have, but I did not make the mistake of identifying their interests necessarily with the national interest. In many cases they may coincide, but they will rot always do so.
I speak with some sadness because I no longer represent coal miners. Because of parliamentary distribution the Point of Ayr colliery is no longer in my constituency. Although I fought as best I could for the liquefaction plant at Point of Ayr, I no longer have the right to do so as a constituency interest. That colliery is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), who is not present today because he is negotiating with Mr. MacGregor and the National Coal Board to further the interests of that most important scheme. I can only give him what suppert I can from the outside. I hope that the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), who was here earlier, will recall that this mine is no more in his constituency than it is in mine and will confine his interventions in the matter to supporting the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn.
Although the Point of Ayr colliery is not in my constituency, it is reasonable for me to say that the technology of liquefaction of coal is valuable in itself. Not merely is it a technology that will be valuable to this country for converting coal into oil, but, if we can perfect it, it will have a sale value in other countries.
As a result of a slowing down in the increase of world oil prices it is only too clear that this process will not be viable, considered in purely commercial terms. If we had a Secretary of State who was the hard-faced monetarist that it suits some Opposition Members to portray him as, he would no doubt very swiftly run his pen through the whole project. I rejoice in the fact that my right hon. Friend is a man with a broad approach to these problems

and that he is prepared to apply Keynesian economics where they can be demonstrated to work. I feel a measure of confidence that this child is in his keeping.
I pay a deep tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), who for a long time looked after the interests of the coal industry from these Benches. I note that he has come under criticism from the Opposition for floating proposals for a measure of privatisation of the coal industry. I do not think that any of us on this side of the House are sufficient ideologues to think for one moment that it will be possible to privatise the coal industry. But surely it must be to the advantage of the coal industry, as to all other industries, to draw additional resources into it. If that involves binning the frontiers between private and public ownership, then I do not think that any of us should object. I am glad that my hon. Friend, now Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is putting forward these ideas. Perhaps they cannot he made to work, but, if they could, some of them would be of real benefit to the coal industry.
I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) on the Front Bench. He has already demonstrated his close interest in the industry. I think this is generally recognised on the Opposition Benches. No doubt he, too, will demonstrate a broad approach to the problems of the industry.
In such a debate Mr. Ian MacGregor becomes the Aunt Sally at which every Opposition Member loves to heave a stone, and clearly he is the sort of man who attracts violent criticism. However, it is wrong to regard Mr. MacGregor as a butcher. He is a salesman—a man who sees it as his function in life to sell the products which he is in charge of producing. That merely echoes the point made by the hon. Member for Easington, who spoke of the importance of selling more British coal abroad. It is absurd that Britain, which produces such vast quantities of coal and has enormous reserves, should be content that only a tiny proportion of it is sold abroad. The argument for the MacGregor approach is powerful. It is that if one brings costs down far enough, one can have a better paid work force and a much larger output. That is the direction in which our coal industry must move.
It is not unfair to say that the previous Secretary of State for Energy was not interested in proposals for a common energy policy in the EC, because he regarded it as a means by which EC expenditure, and therefore Government expenditure, might increase substantially. I hope that the present Secretary of State will be a little more flexible in his attitude towards this matter. When the EC budget was being considered, the budget commissioner, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, put forward proposals for a tax on imported energy into the Community. In some forms, such a tax or levy could be extremely damaging to Britain; but here is the germ of an idea that could be of immense benefit to Britain and to the coal industry, because it could produce the funds to enable a substantial investment to be made in the coal industry to make it more modern and efficient. If the coal industry of the next century is to compete with the United States, India or Australia, we must be prepared for massive investment and for the modernisation of working methods. That inevitably involves considerable expenditure—probably far beyond what is available to any single member Government.
We must not lose sight of our main objective, which is not merely to secure jobs for the miners—although we would all wish to do that—and to get as much coal out


of the ground as we can, but to provide the British people and industry with energy at a fully competitive price. All of us know from speaking to constituents that they are sick of perpetual increases in the cost of energy—above all, the perpetual increases in the cost of electricity; and the largest ingredient in the cost of electricity is the price of coal. We must keep down coal prices, which, as has been demonstrated by many Conservative Members today, would be consistent with high wages and good working conditions for miners. The coal industry must be expansion-minded. I know of no Minister more expansion-minded than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am glad that the Bill is to receive a Second Reading, apparently without opposition.

Mr. Terry Patchett: Many hon. Members present today represent constituencies that are heavily involved in coal mining, as is mine. I have heard much today about the miners, but I have heard nothing about the attitude of the miners towards the Government and how we have reached the present position. I am sure that the coal industry will welcome this breathing space given by the Bill, given its present financial position, but we must realise that it is only a breathing space. The Government have not fully recognised the problems of the industry, which can be settled only on a longer-term basis than the Bill allows.
However, the Bill at least hints that the Government are aware of some of the problems, since clause 2 grants a new period of payment of grants to reduce deficit from 1983–84 to 1985–86. However, their enthusiasm for clauses 3 and 4, which deal with the financing of pit closures and redundancies, highlights one of the major problems of the industry. The miners — I am speaking not about one chap I met in the club, but from a lifetime's association with the mining industry—believe that the Government lack enthusiasm for the industry.
We are all aware that the strategy of the Coal Industry Acts 1980 and 1982 was that the board should ultimately be self-financing, and every report that I have read said that that would be achieved by 1984. However, three years is a long time in industry as well as in politics, especially under a Tory Government. Who would have predicted in 1979 or 1980 the utter failure of the Government to tackle unemployment and thereby to stimulate industry to use energy? Conservative Members say much about markets abroad, but the domestic markets have been decimated by the Government's lack of initiative in tackling the problem. That, apart from the added financial burden of the stacks of coal in collieries all round the country—which are not caused by a lack of interest or productivity on the part of the miners — is a monument to the Government's economic policy.
The men in the industry believe that the Government are basing their energy policy not on the cool light of facts but on a blind hatred of the National Union of Mineworkers. They imported an Americanised chairman more renowned for union bashing than for his experience in the coal industry. However, at least they conceded a U-turn. At the beginning of the recession the Government were blaming naughty trade unionists and the lack of productivity for the problem, but the Prime Minister could

not go to the CBI and find anyone suitable in British industry to manage our nationalised coal industry. Even her friends in the CBI must have been snubbed by that.
The Government seem to be hell bent on a nuclear energy programme, regardless of the safety questions that are still unanswered, including the disposal of nuclear waste.
In 1979–80, 24,000 jobs were lost in the industry, and 10,000 were lost in 1982–83. That does not stimulate confidence in the Government, who appear to be going nowhere. The terms of reference of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission once more highlighted only a three-year period and ignored completely the fact that we lost a vast market because of the Government's inactivity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said that one reason why the board's figures were so bad in recent years was high interest rates. They have been a handicap since vesting day, and the public should appreciate that they have been a heavy burden. Therefore, a high proportion of the grants paid to the National Coal Board are repaid in the form of interest payments for previous borrowing.
Coal is an asset, and it should be exploited as such. Many allied industries will suffer as a result of the cuts and closures in the mining industry that the Government are encouraging through the auspices of MacGregor. The Government appear to be considering coal expenditure as a single aspect of spending. It is not just spending on the coal industry that counts, but the overall effect on public spending. When uneconomic pits are sliced off, public expenditure must be used to cover the loss of jobs and so on.
I hope that with this in mind the Government will take a fresh look, will recognise the damaging effects of the recession and will be ready if ever an upsurge comes. I do not see one coming, but Conservative Members tell me it is. When a Labour Government take over after the next election we want a coal mining industry and an energy industry to get the country back to work and to bring down unemployment. We want to get the industry back on its feet. Please do not decimate our energy source.

Mr. Michael Fallon: Two weeks ago the House was asked to approve a Bill to increase the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders, the borrowing limit of which in 1979 was £300 million, to a limit this year of £1,200 million. Tonight we are being asked in a similar way to increase a limit which in 1979 was £2,200 million to a total of £5,500 million, extendable to £6,000 million. The two Bills appear to have three similar characteristics. First, there is no end in sight to this public subsidy. Secondly, and sadly, there appears to be a total absence of agreement between management and unions on the structure, size, shape and scope of the industry involved. Thirdly, the assumptions made by Government throughout the consideration of both industries for a period going back more than 10 years have been wrong time and again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), when introducing the Coal Industry Bill 1980 said:
I would expect that the new level would be sufficient to last the board for about three years".—[Official Report, 17 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 1380.]
We are three years on today and not only is that assumption wrong—and, interestingly, it was made on


the basis of 14 per cent. annual inflation, which did not turn out to he the case—but the other assumptions made when that Bill was presented to the House in terms of the closure of uneconomic capacity and improvements in productivity were similarly wrong. I wish that Opposition Members, who have mentioned productivity in their speeches, would study the damning evidence in appendix 3.10 of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
I described the action of British Shipbuilders' unions in demanding an increase in the borrowing powers of that industry as treating Parliament as an autobank. I think it only fair to say that, for the miners over the past 10 years, Parliament has been more of a milch cow. What has been mined over the past 10 years is public money —taxpayers' money — from the Treasury. As we have already heard today, more than £1 billion a year now goes in either capital or current subsidy to the industry. Not only operating grant, but all manner of supporting money goes together with that subsidy. There are regional grants, social grants, and deferred interest payment schemes for the industry and, for the miners themselves, there are, in addition to normal redundancy payments, disturbance allowances, retention payments and removal allowances.
Indeed, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, in paragraph 3.133 of its report, put it very well when it said that:
The NCB has been financed almost entirely by loan capital and Government grants during the last ten years.
I think it is time that hon. Members were slightly more frank about the state of the industry, in particular the state of the deep collieries and their operating results. It was not until the publication of that report that it was possible for the House to evaluate the operating results of each colliery, one set against another. It was not until that report was published that it became clear that only twice over the past 11 years have the deep mines ever been profitable and the profit over those 11 years totalled about £32 million and must be set against losses of nearly £855 million.
I have carefully read through the proceedings on both the two previous borrowing powers measures and, having read those debates and the proceedings of the two Standing Committees, I am struck by the air of unreality that appears to permeate debates on the coal industry. The only honourable and consistent exception to that air of unreality appear to have been the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet). This industry might be described as "Arthur in Wonderland". I should like to give a current example of how unrealistic are the attitudes of the industry and how divorced they are from the interests of taxpayers as a whole. An article in The Times of 3 November said:
At a recent joint meeting of the deputies' union, NACODS, and the British Association of Colliery Management, it was agreed that the coal board should be approached to ask the Government to ban further pit closures, provide subsidies for coal production, and halt coal imports.
With regard to providing subsidies to the industry, it has become clear during the debate that not only has my right hon. Friend responded to the challenge to put further resources into the industry but he has done so in a way which some Conservative Members might consider almost too lavish. With regard to halting coal imports, it appears to have escaped the notice of the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), that coal imports have halved over the past three years—the great bulk of them is taken up by the import

of materials that are not indigenous to this country. While I agree with the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) who said that the real task facing the industry is to find new markets abroad, I was disappointed that he then went on to mount a personal attack on the chairman of the Coal Board, who has particular expertise in that area. Not only did he do that but he appeared to expect OECD countries, to which we were to be asked to export more coal, at the same time not to expect us to change some highly monopolistic arrangements in the conduct of our own industry, such as the centralised bargaining system that exists between the Coal Board and the Central Electricity Generating Board.
The final issue raised in the statement by NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Management is closures. It would appear from what has been said from the Opposition Benches that the need for the closure of uneconomic capacity has been suggested only by Mr. MacGregor and Conservative Members. That is not true. It was first proposed by the then Labour Government in 1974. The present Financial Secretary to the Treasury, speaking in the debate on the last coal industry measure, in 1982, reminded the House:
A coal industry examination interim report produced by the Labour Government in June 1974 contains definite assumptions relating to the pattern of closures due to excessive capacity during the period when new capacity came on stream. The assumption was that 3 million to 4 million tonnes of capacity a year would disappear during the period'.—[Official Report, 2 February 1982; Vol 17, c. 206.]
That was recognised not only by the Labour Government in 1974. It was subsequently recognised by the Commission in Brussels in a proposal for a new regulation and it has been recognised yet again by the chairman of the Coal Board in his introductory statement to this year's report, when he says:
In these circumstances of financial and physical imbalance, it cannot be right, as I have said repeatedly throughout the year, that a small proportion of our total output, mined from persistently unprofitable pits with no prospect of viability, should be responsible for the greater part of both surplus output and financial losses".
In the end we return to the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and this is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider the findings of that report since its publication before the election. Its central conclusion, in my view, concerns pit closures. It says in paragraph 8.25:
When we questioned the NCB as to why it had failed to achieve the level of closures envisaged in the Tripartite Report of 1974 and why it had assumed only a modest level of closures in its current medium-term development plan, we were told in both cases that the necessity of maintaining good industrial relations precluded faster progress.
Thus, when the right hon. Member for Salford, East argues for a return to the tripartite machinery, he is really arguing for a return to the veto by the miners' union over decision-making by the management and Government on the future needs of the industry and, indirectly, over the needs and better interests of taxpayers as a whole.

Mr. James Wallace: It was a pleasure to listen to the maiden speech of my compatriot, the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). and a privilege to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), whose speech was the most passionate I have heard since entering Parliament. It had the House spellbound.


The Bill is necessary, given the present state of the National Coal Board's finances, because it extends the borrowing limits of and advances extra assistance to the NCB. Therefore, we on this Bench will not oppose it. Nevertheless, we consider it another disappointing measure because it represents an extension of a Government policy which, although presented today as supportive of the industry, falls far short of the positive commitment to the coal industry that we in the Liberal party and SDP believe is necessary if the industry in Britain is to have a meaningful future.
It cannot be doubted that there is a crisis in the coal industry. There is a crisis in industrial relations, of which recent events at Monktonhall are a symptom, and there is a financial crisis, one of the more acute symptoms of it being the increased stocks at many of our coal mines. The hon. Members for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) and for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) seemed to think that the consequence of having large stocks was colliery closures. The hon. Member for Midlothian eloquently put the argument why hard-nosed economics are not the only criteria to apply when considering the future of collieries. Although we may have coal reserves in the soil to last for 300 years, in the great length of history that is only a limited period. In any event, much of those stocks would be lost if we closed mines which still had productive capacity.
Reference has been made to defence considerations. I have on a number of occasions debated North sea oil with the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North. It has been generally accepted by hon. Members that it is in the national interest that we should become increasingly self-sufficient in oil and not be so dependent on the volatile nations of the middle east. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North thought that we might get coal from South Africa. Apart from any moral questions—about how that coal is produced as cheaply as he indicated—that would appear to be a volatile part of the world on which to depend for future energy supplies.
I agree that we have excess coal stocks, but that is due to efficiency on the part of the coal industry and inefficiency on the part of the Government to run the economy properly. When the Conservatives came to power in 1979, the fuel used by the public supply system was 122 million tonnes coal equivalent per annum. It had reduced to 107 million tonnes by 1982, a drop of just over 12 per cent., but the proportion of that made up of coal fell by only 9½ per cent. There has been a world recession, but there has also been a Government failure to sustain the level of overall demand, and that has led to a decrease in the demand for coal. At the same time, there has been an increase in the efficiency of miners; overall output per man-shift hour has been rising over the years and today, at 2·44 tonnes, it is the highest since nationalisation.
One must examine the problem from two angles. The first is to examine how to increase the market for coal. There must initially be an expansion of the economy. Lost manufacturing production since the Conservatives came to power has contributed to much of the problem. If the Government introduced some of the policies outlined in the report "Back to Work" commissioned by the Liberal party and the SDP, there would be an increase in manufacturing output and a corresponding increase in fuel demand.
The Government could extend the Government-aided scheme, for which there are signs of a good take-up, for converting to coal-firing boilers now using gas and oil equipment. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) referred to this at length. It has been suggested that the limit of £50 million placed on that scheme by the Government will be reached by the autumn of this year. It also appears that the take-up of the scheme only scratches the surface of what could be done. Will that scheme be continued and is it having a good take-up?
The biggest market for coal is that which goes to the CEGB and the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Perhaps they could follow private industry by converting some of their oil boilers to coal firing. It has been done with considerable success in the United States and Denmark, where some conversions have enabled a dual system to operate; it is then possible to have both oil and coal capacity, thereby safeguarding the position to take account of future price differentials.
We on this Bench consider that a barrier to innovation is the decision of the CEGB and South of Scotland Electricity Board to put so many of their eggs in the nuclear basket. We are sceptical about the expansion of nuclear power and do not think that there are economic arguments for it. No doubt someone from the electricity generating industry can pick out one good nuclear power station and pit it against a coal-fired station and tell us that it is more economical. We are entitled to ask, in any of these calculations, where are the costs for the years which Heysham B took to be constructed and the years when Hunterston B was out of commission? The Select Committee on Energy, in a report two years ago, made it clear that it was dubious on this matter, and had great scepticism about whether there was an economic case for saying that electricity generation by nuclear power was cheaper than by coal.
The demand argument does not exist. There is excess capacity in England and a considerable amount of excess capacity in Scotland. As a result, in the last fortnight the South of Scotland Electricity Board yet again cut its requirements for coal from Scottish pits. In 1981, the demand from the SSEB was 7·8 million tonnes, and next year it will be just over 3·8 million tonnes. That must threaten a number of pits in Scotland. The Government say that they are supporting the coal industry, but is that not hypocritical, and inconsistent with their encouragement of bodies such as the SSEB to go ahead with nuclear power stations, and in particular to continue with the station at Torness?
The other crisis in the coal industry is that of pit closures. Undubtedly, after many years of working, pits can become exhausted, or the geographical circumstances may be such that there are insuperable difficulties, and in both events pits must close. Labour Members have been misrepresented by Conservative Members as saying that they oppose closures at any cost. I heard some Labour members say clearly that there were circumstances in which closures had to take place. "Plan for Coal" in 1974 made it clear that when a mine had become exhausted and there were insuperable running difficulties it had to be closed.
The great loss of morale in the coal industry is because much has been said about closures and not enough about investment in new mines.

Mr. Rowlands: Or in existing ones.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is correct.
We accept that some mines will have to close, but there should be full consultation with everybody involved, and a number of factors should be taken into consideration, in particular the social ones. The older mines, which are in most danger of being closed, are in limited geographical areas in south Wales, the north-east of England and Scotland. If closures occur in such limited areas, the social impact will be even greater. We must ensure that the Government are sensitive about this and have social policies ready to take care of the problem if and when it should arise.
We should also ensure that we do not waste resources. Our energy resources are finite and we cannot afford to lose them. I have studied some of the reports of past debates on the coal industry, and I was struck by the number of right hon. and hon. Members who gave examples of mines that one year were declared to be unprofitable and unproductive but which, because nothing was done about them at the time, were making a profit two or three years later in changed circumstances. The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) gave such an example today. We must be sure, when we take decisions to close mines, that we are not unnecessarily wasting capacity.
The closure of mines must go hand in hand with the progressive replacement of old capacity with new and the introduction of new technology in mining to make it more efficient and safe, and we must develop existing mines as well as sink new ones. There must be a future for our coal industry, because coal resources are available. Coal must play a significant part in our future energy strategy. We call for a reaffirmation of "Plan for Coal". There should be a new tripartite deal for coal, with the industry committed to a high level of investment, and with more Government support.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) asked, "Why not financial reconstruction?" When the Government seem prepared to write off the debts of British Airways, why not take the bold step of writing off the debts of the NCB? It is all very well for the Government to tell us how much they are giving as a deficit grant to the coal industry—£374 million in the last financial year—when of that £366 million was paid back by the Coal Board in interest charges. The third leg of the tripartite agreement would be constructive co-operation between management and the mining unions on any pit closures, with the unions safe in the knowledge that that would go hand in hand with new mining developments.
As we look forward to a time when oil and gas reserves decline, the future of the coal industry must be bright. Its problem is a short-term one because of lack of demand. It is vital, at this difficult time, that we maintain existing capacity, do not unnecessarily throw away coal resources or our skilled labour force, and that we invest in a successful future for the coal industry.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will forgive me of I do not follow him in his points about the future of the coal industry. I shall dwell on one particular proposal. We need a strong coal industry. It should be a smaller industry, and it will be in the National Coal Board's interests, over a period, to dispose of its ancillary businesses and opencast mining operations. However, I shall not develop that point this evening.
I shall concentrate on developing some of the points made by Labour Members about the current balance sheet and financing structures of the Coal Board. This is the fourth Bill that the House has had to consider since 1977. Mr. Tony Benn in that year raised the borrowing limit to £1,400 million. In this Bill, some seven years later, we are seeking to extend the limit to £6,000 million. That. by any stretch of the imagination, is a considerable increase.
There is an argument in favour of putting all nationalised industries, not just the Coal Board, on a proper financial footing. There is also an argument for a radical restructure of the Coal Board's balance sheet. I do not say that simply with a view to writing off bad debts. We need to ensure that the Coal Board has a proper balance sheet and a reasonable debt to equity ratio comparable with other mining companies worldwide. It should also be reasonable to expect it to proceed without further deficit grants. Any social grants that are thought to be reasonable in all the circumstances should be revealed in the balance sheet and committed by the Government up to a maximum limit for a number of years forward.
With this reconstructed balance sheet, the Coal Board should be expected to pay a dividend on the Government's equity capital. In other words, the Coal Board should be put into the same position as any major private sector mining company, such as Rio Tinto-Zinc, the Amax Corporation or any other corporation, with the one difference that the shareholding would be held by the Government only, not by a number of private sector individuals or investment trusts.
What are the advantages of such a change? There is not only the question of the writing off of past debts, but acknowledging that we have lost a considerable amount of public money. The major importance of such a restructuring is that it would concentrate the minds of management, unions and Ministers on where they want the industry to go in future. It would force them to put a sensible valuation on the assets of the Coal Board. Restructuring would make them examine how much investment they would need to achieve in two or three years.
Management and Government would know that it would be a matter not simply of returning to the House for a further inrease in the borrowing limit if things went wrong. There would be effects on directors if a company went bust under the Companies Acts. That would affect public understanding of the financial difficulties within the industry. The public do not realise that each time we raise the borrowing limits, in effect we acknowledge that the National Coal Board has gone bust again. They would understand it if the Coal Board were a company under the Companies Acts and had to go through the stages that are required of such companies.
I do not believe that this Bill will make a tremendous difference to the way in which the Coal Board is run, but it is an improvement. It would mean an internal discipline on management, and an improvement in communication with the public about the industry's performance. Just as importantly, this measure would make it easier for those of us who are not experts on the coal industry to have a better idea of what is happening. It would ease the role of the Select Committee in examining the way in which the industry is proceeding.
I recognise that it is too late for the Minister to consider introducing such a step in the Bill, but I hope that the Department and the Government will consider my


suggestion because it applies to all nationlised industries, not just to the National Coal Board. If, God forbid, we have a similar Bill in a few years' time, my suggestion might offer an alternative that could be considered by the House.

Mr. Ray Powell: When I left the Chamber for one cup of tea, I was frightened to death by the story on the front page of The Standard about the crash of an atomic waste lorry on a motorway. I thought that the article referred to the M4 into Wales, across the Severn bridge. If a lorry crashed there and traffic on the bridge was further restricted, this would be a disaster for Wales even greater than the one that we have suffered since the Tory Government took office in May 1979.
There are four valleys in Ogmore, each containing a number of collieries. After four years of Tory Government there is only one colliery in the Ogmore valley still producing coking coal. Last week we were informed that the Wyndham western colliery was subject to closure. If Conservative Members want to see the social consequences of a colliery closure in a mining valley, they are invited to come to my constituency. In the Ogmore valley, there are 8,000 people out of work. Last Friday the job centre had 100 jobs on offer—for bar attendants and assistants and for engineers in Airvac, but there were few jobs available for people in the Ogmore area.
The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who left the Chamber as soon as he made his speech, suggested that no young people are being made redundant. He should come to Wales, because not only are young people in the collieries being made redundant, but there is no chance of jobs for them in Wales. In the Ogmore valley, 1,600 young people under the age of 21 have few, if any, prospects of obtaining a job in mining or other industries.
My father was a miner, and I lived in the Rhondda valley. He tried to persuade me to continue at school so that I did not go into the mining industry. However, all my school mates worked in the colliery. Their sons and grandsons, who should have jobs in the Rhondda, Ogmore and other mining areas of south Wales, have no chance of a job in a colliery. No apprentices are taken on in south Wales.
When I left the Chamber for a cup of tea, I had a shock not just because of the front page story of The Standard, but because of a story on the second page. In a way, it was a relief because I read:
Jobs message to Tories
The Government must cut unemployment if it is to stay in office for a third term, Energy Secretary Peter Walker said today.
Speaking at a Financial Times conference in London on The Second Thatcher Government, Mr. Walker said he did not think the Tories should go into another election with jobless figures at their present level.

Mr. Rowlands: There must be two of them.

Mr. Powell: We have noted the right hon. Gentleman's stance when he addressed that conference and his stance when he started to address the Chamber this afternoon. If he does not change the Government's energy policies and stops colliery closures, I can guarantee that the Tory Government will not have a third term.
Because of the carve-up of parliamentary boundaries by the Tory electoral commissioners, to ensure Tory seats, I

lost half of my former constituency. I had an electorate of 74,000, and it was reduced to 52,000. Nevertheless, despite a reduction of 22,000 electors, I received a handsome majority of 17,242—1,240 more than I had received during the 1979 election.
We feel for the people who have been put out of work, and we talk to them. Conservative Members should go to the Ogmore valley to see young lads strolling round the streets with nothing to do all day. They should go into the miners' institutes, to which my father and my friends' fathers contributed threepence a week to keep them going. Those lads are in the clubs and playing snooker. Some of them have degrees, but have no chance of obtaining a job because of the Government's policies.
People in the Ogmore and other valleys had already suffered massive unemployment because of MacGregor's attitude to the British Steel Corporation. This was before Mr. MacGregor was appointed to the chairmanship of the National Coal Board.

Mr. Skinner: Another Yankee import.

Mr. Powell: Do not put me off; I was in full flight.
Mr. MacGregor began by persuading the trade unions that the answer to the steel industry's problems was to make the industry efficient and well paid for those who would be retained in that industry. Conservative Members should go to the Port Talbot and Llanwern works, talk to the remaining staff and ask them whether it is the industry that they expected when they agreed to demanning.
I warn the miners and their leaders that this is what will happen with MacGregor, who is there to butcher and cut the mining industry. He will persuade them that a reduction in manning levels is needed so that he can create circumstances similar to those in the steel industry.
The Wyndham western colliery is the one pit left in the Ogmore valley, and that is to close. There is one industrialist on a new estate about which the Secretary of State for Wales continually boasts. There are four new factories on the Pwyllygwent site. One is occupied and employs 40 women. That industrialist told me only a fortnight ago that if the Wyndham western colliery closed he would take his factory from Ogmore valley and go elsewhere. With a valley of 8,000 to 9,000 people, we have one factory employing 40 females while a colliery is to close that employs 540 miners.
It is no good the Secretary of State going to a conference this afternoon and warning people about the Government's term of office expiring at the end of this Parliament unless unemployment is cut. Something must be done in the valleys to create jobs for people in my area.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned "Yankee." I call Mr. MacGregor the Yankee doodle butcher of the steel industry because he can claim the remarkable achievement of closing most of our steel plants at taxpayers' expense. I have often wondered, and I have been asked many times, how Parliament can pay such a price to one person to destroy so much in so short a time. I know hundreds of people who could have easily achieved more for far less. Mr. MacGregor reduced the steel industry by 110,000 jobs within four years. Parliament does not do anything. We take him on at great expense to cut as many jobs as possible in the shortest possible time, without any regard to the social consequences of colliery closures. Only 69,000 steel workers are left after four years of MacGregor. They are


facing an endless deterioration in their standards of living. It is time that Parliament took a hand to try and streamline the industry. Wales will never recover from the butchery. It is still reeling from this vicious, unprecedented attack on its steel industry. There are 200,000 people out of work in Wales. Most areas had a reduction in unemployment figures last month but in Wales they increased.
MacGregor wants a vote to decide whether the miners should accept their 5·2 per cent. increase and whether overtime should be banned. I have no doubt that the miners would welcome a ballot if he included in it a question whether he should continue as chairman of the National Coal Board. The miners would jump at the chance of making a democratic decision.
For months before the general election in June, as convenor of the Welsh group of Members of Parliament I had discussions with county councils, borough and district councils, trade unions, Welsh Members of Parliament and at Select Committee meetings; we had seminars and talks with Philip Weekes, the general manager of the south Wales NCB, and Mr. Siddall. The list is endless but the results are significant. The Government announced the new NCB chairman. A crisis turned out to be a frightening disaster. We approached many people. including the Secretary of State for Energy. He responded and within a matter of hours received a deputation as the result of a request from the Secretary of State for Wales. A letter was sent to MacGregor in September asking for a meeting. He said, "No, go and talk to the chairman of the south Wales NCB."
The Government should carefully consider the extent of the butchery and annihilation of the south Wales pits that has taken place, so that we retain what we have.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: The Opposition's speeches have been long on heat and short on light. We on the Conservative Benches will not all rise to speak with unalloyed pleasure about the presentation and discussion of the Bill. It is the third time recently that we have been invited to pour more money down the mine. Some of us are coming to the conclusion that the time is quickly approaching when this must stop.
The intention of the 1980 Act which we are updating was that the coal industry should break even without grants by 1983–84. The results are manifestly different from the original expectation. It is well worth studying the published figures to see the amount of money which has been swallowed by these bottomless pits since 1980 and to understand the scale and measure of the problem. In 1979–80 grants amounted to £251 million; in 1980–81 to £255 million; in 1981–82 to £576 million; in 1982–83 to £520 million; and in 1983–84 they are expected to rise to £643 million. Thousands of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money have been wasted in this appalling way.

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has given us some interesting statistics. He may like to compare them with the fact that the Government whom he supports are proposing to spend £3 billion on 400 families in the Falkland Islands. We have 200,000 people employed in mining plus those in its associated industries.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman would no doubt look at the matter differently if there yeas a prospect of sinking coal mines in the Falkland Islands. He seems to

consider that burrowing underground is worth spending money on regardless of what is brought out. Some of us wish that the hon. Gentleman was still burrowing underground.
The figures that I have given represent operating and social grants that have been made to the industry. In addition, investment finance has also been funded by the taxpayer. The NCB's external financing limit this year is the amazing sum of £1,195 million. It is the largest external financing limit of any nationalised industry. We must ask ourselves what its purpose is. Is it simply to maintain in existence for ever a coal mining industry? What would be the utility of such an approach?
Much has been said about the history and social consequence of changes in the mining industry. Although there are no coal mines in my constituency, my family has been involved with the mining industry for many generations. I am the first member of my family not to derive an income directly from the coal mining industry. My father spent 35 years in the south Wales mining industry, and both my grandfathers were coal miners. I grew up in the type of area to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) referred and I well understand the social problems created when a mine is closed, but we must not blind ourselves to the consequences of economic change throughout the world. We cannot ossify our economy for ever on the basis of that which existed 60 or 70 years ago.

Mr. Skinner: We have coal reserves for 300 years.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member can make his own speech in his own time. I should be grateful if he did not make it from a sedentary position while I am speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not interrupt from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member for Bolsover recently enjoyed the protection of Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will extend the same protection to me.
We must not consider ossifying the economy. No doubt similarly impassioned and erudite speeches could have been made about the charcoal burners of the 16th century when the coal miners took over from them. Impassioned pleas could also have been made to preserve the jobs of cart and stagecoach manufacturers in the 19th century No doubt the national union of quill pen operatives would have had much to say when the typewriter was invented and new technology made redundant many of the skills employed by its work force.
The arguments of Opposition Members have been quite extraordinary. We are discussing taking money out of people's pockets which they themselves, by the expression of their wishes through the market, do not wish to spend on the purchase of coal. That would be the equivalent of forcing people to shop in an establishment where the prices are higher than they wish to pay and the goods in the shop window are not those which they wish to purchase. I believe that the time has come for us to consider properly the ethics and morality of continuing in the present manner.
The debate and the relevant documents have established that the coal industry is absolutely broke and that there is


no justification for any wage increase. If we examine the NCB's outstanding loans as shown in its books, we discover that the sum involved is £3·74 billion and that the assets of the NCB amount to £3·71 billion, so the balance sheet will show a deficit. The NCB is giving an illusion of prosperity. The Bill is the most expensive pit prop ever invented.
I deplore the derogatory remarks made about Mr. MacGregor, the new chairman of the NCB. I believe Mr. MacGregor to be a talented and intelligent business man who has the interests of the industry at heart. He appreciates that to survive in the world we must produce the goods that people want to buy at the price that they are prepared to pay. The future prosperity of the coal mining industry depends not only on domestic demand for the product but on being able to sell it increasingly on the world markets. That is the only way in which employment in the industry will stabilise, thereby saving jobs.
The 1974 document, "Plan for Coal", is the root of all the arguments to which we have listened and underlies the legislation that we are trying to update. Parts of the plan have been fulfilled and Opposition Members are delighted with those. However, they conveniently forget those parts of the plan which have remained unfulfilled. Since 1974 16 million tonnes of new productive capacity have been opened and a further 23 million tonnes of annual productive capacity will be opened by 1987. We are getting near to the 40 million to 42 million tonnes which was the target for annual and new capacity put forward in "Plan for Coal".
Conversely, when we examine the history of closures of uneconomic mines, which was an essential part of the strategy in the plan, we note that 2 million tonnes of annual capacity have been closed since 1974 which is well below the 3 million to 4 million tonnes of capacity projected in the report. We can see that the other side of the equation has not come into existence.
The two principal problems facing the coal industry have been well exemplified in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Contrary to what was said by one hon. Member, the report is not hostile. It was compiled by independent men who had taken evidence from both sides of the industry and came to an independent conclusion. Both of the problems isolated in the report are referred to on page 366, paragraph 19.13, which states:
The first problem is that the NCB is producing much more coal than can find a market either in the United Kingdom or, at acceptable prices, abroad. As a result coal stocks held in the United Kingdom have been rising for a number of years, and in the NCB's own view are now excessive. These stocks are a continuing drain on the NCB's finances and a considerable burden on public funds.
We all know that at present there is six months' supply of coal on the ground. We also know that Mr. Scargill poses no danger by threatening an overtime ban which would hurt only the employees in the industry because the power stations have sufficient stocks of coal to last them through the winter. For the miners to crucify themselves on the altar of Arthur Scargill and his blatherings would be the ultimate in foolishness.
Coal stocks stand at 59 million tonnes, which is six months' supply to the CEGB. An overtime ban for four years would be needed to exhaust the existing stocks.
The second problem which the report identified was that of high cost pits. Paragraph 19.14 states:

well under half of the 1981–82 deep-mined output of 108 million tonnes was produced at levels of operating cost below current average proceeds.
The report correctly states:
The high cost pits impose a heavy burden on the industry's finances. In 1981–82 the 10 per cent. of the deep mined output 10–8 million tonnes that came from pits with the highest losses per tonne involved operating losses of £263 million.

Mr. Skeet: Would my hon. Friend refer to volume II, page 41, of the report, which deals with south Wales? Only four pits appear to be profitable in that area.

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Some Opposition Members seem to have been unable to read volume II of the report. Although Monktonhall colliery was referred to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) as a profitable pit, the figures given in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission belie that statement. A loss of £8·9 million was recorded in the latest year for which figures are available. Before the Opposition pontificate on the Bill, they should read and digest the facts. The problems of the coal industry are high production costs and insufficient demand.

Mr. Peter Pike: Will you explain why existing stocks are so great?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not attribute arguments to me and expect me to explain them.

Mr. Pike: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member for Tattorn (Mr. Hamilton) agree that the high stocks of coal are due to lack of consumption resulting from the rundown of the economy brought about by the Government's policies? If the economy recovered and demands for power increased, the stocks would rapidly fall.

Mr. Hamilton: The simple answer is that I do not agree, but I shall not detain the House on that point.
There is a startling contrast between the situation in the high-cost deep-mine pits and the new investment in efficient projects. In contrast in the loss-making 12 per cent. of production capacity, operations such as the newly developed Selby coalfield employ advanced mining technology and are highly capital intensive and highly successful. At Selby, the world's largest capacity coal mine, 4,500 men produce 10 million tonnes of coal per year. About 25,000 men would be required to produce that volume of coal from the high-cost mines listed in the report. If the industry is to survive and be profitable, and if jobs in the industry are to be secure, that is the way of the future.
There is another dimension to the problem. It is not just a question of the direct cost to the taxpayer in the price of coal and the subsidies to the industry. Other industries must bear the high cost of energy, with repercussions on jobs elsewhere in the economy. It is well known that 82 per cent. of CEGB power stations are coal fired. The high price of fuel thus makes production costs of other industries uncompetitive and many other jobs are put at risk. Far from contributing to the decrease in unemployment that all Conservatives wish to see, it makes it even harder for firms to survive.
The Government have sponsored agreements with the CEGB to purchase more coal, imposing further cost on the taxpayer. In 1981 the NCB contracted to sell 75 million tonnes of coal to the CEGB. Imports were to be restricted to 0·75 million tonnes although coal could be obtained on


the world market more cheaply than at home. That cost £19 million in compensation from the Government. I therefore greatly welcomed the Financial Secretary's recent statement that no state monopoly was sacrosanct and that through competition and privatisation the Government intend to open the state sector to the stimulus of competition. I hope that that will be extended to the coal industry, at least in some limited way. I have no doubt that that would maximise investment in the most efficient pits, which would do wonders for job security in the industry as well as being regarded as an advantage by the taxpayer.
The Opposition regard the multinationals and the oil companies as bogies and demons——

Mr. Lofthouse: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it right that a Member of the House should ignore the advice and guidance of Mr. Speaker, who asked for brief speeches? Some hon. Members have been here since 2.30 pm and they will be deprived of the opportunity to address the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker can only offer advice. Whoever is in the Chair, one hopes that hon. Members will follow that advice. If hon. Members are anxious that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) should conclude his speech, it may help if they let him get on with it.

Mr. Hamilton: I shall not detain the House much longer.
There are great prospects for investment in the coal industry by the oil companies if only we allow it to happen. In 1981, the last year for which figures are available, five or six major oil companies world wide invested £1,400 million in the coal industry in various parts of the world. We need that kind of investment in this country from private pockets, not extorted from the taxpayer by the use of parliamentary majorities. There is an umbilical connection between exports, jobs and investment from abroad.
This week's issue of The 
Economist——

Mr. J. D. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many hon. Members have been present since the beginning of the debate, hoping to participate. Many are from coal mining constituencies which will be affected by the Bill. I am getting a little hot under the collar because the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) has been speaking for more than 25 minutes. I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that after this we should go on to the 10-minute rule.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Nothing has occurred so far which is out of order. I repeat, however, that I hope that hon. Members will take Mr. Speaker's advice. It is perhaps in the best interests of the House if we let the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) conclude his speech.

Mr. Hamilton: I might well have finished by now if the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) had allowed me to continue.
A short paragraph in The Economist this week exemplifies yet another opportunity to expand the coal industry and the number of jobs in it. I should have thought that to spend a few minutes on that would be encouraging. I am surprised that the Opposition disagree. The article states:
Britain is western Europe's largest hard-coal producer, sitting on the edge of one of the fastest-growing coal markets in the world. Europe's present consumption of 250 million tonnes

of coal could, some think, double in 10 years. But British deep-mined coal costs on average £38 a tonne to extract, while world prices for coal delivered to Europe are around £33 a tonne.
We are not competing in the market to maximise our advantage.
The coal industry has not always been renowned for good industrial relations, least of all before nationalisation. In a letter after the 1926 strike Lord Birkenhead said that it would be possible without exaggeration to say after meeting the miners' leaders at that time that he had met the stupidest men in England, were it not for the fact that he then went on to meet the owners. The taxpayers are now the owners and they are not so stupid. The taxpayers of this country will not stand by for ever while thousands of millions of pounds of their money are poured ever further into the bottomless pits of the coal industry.

Mr. Roy Mason: We have just witnessed a blatant display of bad manners and an abuse of the House. The person responsible—one cannot call him honourable—should withdraw from the precincts. The Government Whips panicked because they had run out of contributors in a coal debate, so they scoured the Corridors and brought in somebody with an Institute of Directors type of mind to pour out statistics and phrases from the various volumes and documents that he had the nerve to bring into the Chamber. He should be ashamed. The House will remember what he did.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have attended the debate since it began at 4 o'clock, except for an hour between 5 pm and 6 pro when I was attending an industry committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing that the right hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) has said which I believe to be out of order.

Mr. Mason: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you have been present during the whole debate, as we have, that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) might have appeared, but that he vanished for at least two hours until he was sought out to come and fill the gap on the Conservative Benches.
I shall be brief. I am surprised that the Secretary of State for Energy, in what could have been a wide-ranging debate on the future of the coal industry—especially on Second Reading of a borrowing powers Bill—did not try to allay the fears and anxieties of Opposition Members and many people in the mining industry. We are worried about the threat of our industry being privatised. The Minister knows that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was formerly responsible for the coal industry, made a typical speech to stockbrokers in the City. He can afford to be brave in front of his stockbroker friends. During that discourse he said that activities such as coal production and sale are in no sense natural monopolies. That is extremely ominous, coming as it does from the former Minister with responsibility for coal who is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
If the Minister wishes to clear the air in his winding-up speech, he should say whether he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are seriously considering privatising some deep mine output which is now controlled by the NCB. We do not want the clock to be turned back 35 years. We got rid of the old system in 1947. I must warn


the Minister that if ideas of that type are allowed to run free without him or the Secretary of State stopping the rumour gathering force, the miners will resent the Government and the Secretary of State with such force that the pit closure programme will not alone be the driving force for that resentment. I strongly recommend that he clears the air tonight.
I warn the Government about the MacGregor ballot which is being rumoured in the press and other media. Those rumours are too strong to be without some foundation. Perhaps they are being encouraged by the Government. I warn the Minister that such a ballot would be regarded by everyone in the industry, whether managers, deputies or miners, as a blatant and gross interference in the constitutional practice of trade unions. The Government must ask themselves what will happen if the miners ignore a ballot. They will. The call will be to the men to ignore the bosses' ballot and stand by their union. The result will be hardened attitudes, and direct confrontation will be inevitable. Is that what the Government want? Moreover, what is the Government's role in this affair? I advise them to clear the air on the matter and not to encourage MacGregor on that tack.
The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has been mentioned. Having read his speech, the Tatton director has just left. His departure is another typical abuse of the Chamber. The report is a series of cold calculating proposals made by a group of detached bureaucrats. The Government are using the commission as a tool to do their dirty work. They will use it to say what the Government want it to advise. They will then present it as an independent body which is telling us what to do—cut capacity by 10 per cent. We have already lost 24,000 jobs in the coal industry since 1979. Are we to lose another 10 per cent. or 60,000 jobs by 1987? Embarking on such a programme will produce constant conflict in the coal industry.
The Government must be warned that the closure of high-cost collieries will have serious repercussions on employment in some of the most deprived regions of the country. What is more, they will be inflicted by a man who has already imposed job losses in Scotland, the north-east, Wales and in the coal mining areas around Sheffield and south Yorkshire. If the Government embark on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's recommendations, there will be trouble. They should recognise that there has been increased output per man-shift overall and at the face, and that absenteeism has been reduced. Moreover, there has been no opposition to mechanisation. We now have the cheapest deep-mined coal in Europe and we have achieved that with less subsidy than our European competitors. Instead of just subsidising redundancy and the dole queues, the Government should see how we can best use that investment to keep jobs.
Who is now encouraging the idea of devolution in the coal mining industry? Is it the Government? Is it MacGregor — the man who has now taken over the NCB? Is it he who is encouraging the break-up of our national industry into autonomous areas? Is it he who is insisting that each area must pay for itself? Is it he who insists that the rich will survive and the weak must go to the wall? Is he responsible for reviving the old district competition? Such a course will be hated and it will be fought against by the British Association of Colliery 

Managers, the National Association of Colliery Officials, Deputies and Shotfirers and by every man jack in the NUM.
I should have thought that, in his first major speech on the coal industry, the Secretary of State would have tried to allay some of the anxieties that Opposition Members and those who work in the coal industry feel. We have many worries about the industry's future. I hope that the Minister will allay some of those fears. I warn him that there are too many ominous signs and that there are many dangerous roads ahead.

Mr. Roger Freeman: I do not represent a mining constituency but I served my political apprenticeship in south Yorkshire. I hope that the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh) and for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) will return to the Chamber soon to make their speeches as I intend to be brief.
I resented the implication of what the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) said—that only those who have worked in, or are now involved in, the coal industry are qualified to speak. I resent that because the Bill is being presented to the whole House. We are talking about a great deal of taxpayers' money and I am one hon. Member who, I hope, represents taxpayers.
I and several of my colleagues recognise the difficulties associated with pit closures in some parts of the country. We are also aware of the dangers of coal mining. When I lived in south Yorkshire I visited many pits, so I appreciate their dangers. Conservative Members are as keen as Opposition Members that miners should earn higher wages but the difference between us is that Opposition Members cannot apply sound common sense to the industry's economic future.
I have sat through the entire debate and I have heard not one sensible justification for keeping open the 20 or 25 pits that are losing upwards of £300 million a year.

Mr. Skinner: rose——

Mr. Freeman: I have been looking forward to an interjection from the hon. Member from Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman will recall that in the past few months another Bill has gone through the House dealing with petroleum royalties. The central argument of that Bill was that because of the shortage of oil—we shall hit the peak in 1986—it would be a good idea to relieve marginal oilfields so that they could produce oil. We believe that marginal pits should be given the same lease of life.

Mr. Freeman: That leads directly to the two points that I was about to make.
The two justifications offered to the House for keeping open uneconomic pits were, first, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, that we should look to the future and thus be assured in some magical way that there would be a real demand for coal. It can be said, with the benefit of hindsight, that "Plan for Coal", which is now almost 10 years old, made optimistic forecasts for coal. Those forecasts have not materialised. It is our duty in the House to look at the present position of the industry, and not look forward 10 or 15 years. We must take the industry as we find it.
The second justification, offered by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), relates to the social consequences of closing pits. My view is that it is the duty of the National Coal Board to run the industry efficiently, and the Government's duty to look after the social consequences of unemployment.
We are talking about a substantial Government expenditure this year of up to £666 million. We must look at alternative ways in which the Government could spend that money. For example, there is the youth training service, which costs about £1 billion. We have heard nothing from the Opposition Benches about alternative uses of Government spending, for example, on the National Health Service, housing and education—all of which are vitally important in my constituency. As the hon. Member for Bolsover knows, it is valid for the House constantly to compare priorities, and that is what I am doing on behalf of the taxpayers.
Conservative Members accept the Bill, but we believe that progress should be faster in improving overall productivity. There are three reasons why we need to improve productivity. First, we need to control public expenditure and reduce subsidies to this industry. Second, we need to improve our opportunities for foreign trade in coal, by controlling and reducing the price of coal and making it more competitive. Third, we must hold down electricity prices, because they depend crucially on coal prices.
This year, productivity in the coal industry, up to the end of October, rose fairly dramatically—that is, up to the overtime ban. It is up by about 5 per cent. When Selby comes fully on stream, productivity will increase even more. However, the House must be assured, by steps taken by the industry itself, that the public money we are considering tonight is spent wisely and that the industry will take steps to put its house in order.
It has become a ritual for Opposition Members to criticise Mr. MacGregor. I remind them that it was the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) who first persuaded Mr. MacGregor to come here from the United States. Mr. MacGregor has been described as old, unpatriotic and incompetent. He can well look after himself, and I hope that he will play his part in pushing and pulling the industry into the next decade.

Mr. Peter Hardy: This is a very unusual coal debate, because as yet Labour Members have not spoken successively. Clearly, the Government have persuaded their newer Back Benchers to join in. Unfortunately, not all of them have listened to the whole debate. If they had, they would have realised that one or two Conservative Members have actually made some sensible comments. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) made a particularly telling point when he urged the Government to persuade Mr. MacGregor not to intervene in industrial relations. Unfortunately, the last two speeches from the Government Back Benches have not shown the same intelligence. The one advantage in the speech of the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) was that it took less time than the speech of the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
We have argued from these Benches that the Government should not take such short-term action that it disqualifies the future. The Minister has already mentioned, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for

Salford, East (Mr. Orme), the difference between 1983 and 1973. The change is remarkable. The reference to 1973 reminded me that the present Secretary of State—I very much regret that he has hardly been in the Chamber since he made his speech—was in charge of the steel industry 10 years ago. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) is probably the only occupant of the Conservative Benches who was here then. He may recall that when the Secretary of State was in charge of industry at that time, he was buoyant about the future of steel and foresaw a huge growth in steel production. The National Coal Board, in my area particularly, invested hundreds of millions of pounds to improve the coal product and to bring it up to metallurgical standard to meet the demand for steel that was envisaged by the present Secretary of State. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested at south Yorkshire pits. Then came Mr. MacGregor, and the whole investment was rendered worthless.
I wrote to Mr. MacGregor suggesting that the steel industry had an obligation to the coal industry, in view of the massive investment that had taken place. Mr. MacGregor's response was dismissive. He said that he did not see that he had any responsibility to assist the coal industry. I am not surprised that the Government appointed Mr. MacGregor. However, I suggest that he will have to be restrained, because it cannot be said that he succeeded in steel. Certainly, our experience in south Yorkshire of the decline in the capacity of our special steel industry, which the Minister knows is of world breaking character, cannot be allowed to be repeated. In 1973, the Conservative Government engaged in a U-turn. That is what we need now.
Mention has been made of unemployment. In the Rotherham metropolitan borough this year only 14 per cent. of school leavers have got jobs. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Does he believe that any community can sustain for long the sort of unemployment that the hon. Member for Tatton and others want to be exacerbated?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) spoke about aid for small oilfields. We should mention the vast sums of money that the Government are preparing to put into the pressurised water reactor. In the press last weekend—I believe that this is relevant—we heard that orders are likely to be placed in advance of the Sizewell inquiry resolution. We read in the press that safety issues are as yet unresolved. In recent weeks there has been substantial evidence of the incidence of contamination. Indeed, if the Conservative party took the same cautious view of the PWR as it appears to take of the coal industry, there would not be the risk of us running headlong into intensive energy difficulties.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Does my hon. Friend know that not only are there advance orders from Sizewell, but that at Druridge bay in Northumberland, land is being purchased for a site for which there has not even been a planning application? There is a further point that may interest hon. Members. On 18 July this year, there was an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of France. There is now an agreement between this country and France on the monitoring of establishments that give off radioactive discharge. We made that agreement this year, although we have had nuclear power stations in this


country for 30 years, and France has had them for the same length of time. Someone is worrying now in 1983 about something they did not worry about in 1952–53.

Mr. Hardy: I cannot respond to that intervention from my hon. Friend, but I trust that the Government will arrange a full day's debate very soon to discuss the important matters that are now subject to public debate.
My hon. Friend mentioned France. I was about to say that Ministers and their Back-Bench supporters are talking nowadays about cheap French nuclear power. Not long ago at a conference I challenged the chairman of the CEGB, who was also talking about cheap nuclear power in France and who had conveniently forgotten the enormous capital write-offs that the French Government provided to ensure that French industry enjoyed lower energy prices than industry in the United Kingdom. We should follow their example and apply a more Keynesian approach to our industrial policies. French energy prices are cheaper than ours, because the French Government make sure that they are cheaper in order to assist industry. They have written off nuclear capital research and development expenditure to an enormous extent. They have taken advantage of that which nature has given them. they have maximised the potential for hydroelectric power, which is essentially inexpensive.
Our national advantages are being thrown away. The Government are extracting our oil and gas with the utmost speed, and we shall very soon reach the end of our self-sufficiency in energy. To do that, and then to respond to the call of Conservative Members for a contraction of the coal industry, would be stupid. In less than 20 years we shall need 90 million tonnes of coal a year for gas alone. We shall need coal for feedstock. We shall need coal for mobility. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made a splendid speech on that subject, and I shall not repeat his remarks. We shall need all the coal that we can get. It would be utter folly — it would be an absurdity—to allow the coal industry to contract to the point at which it could not serve the national interest.
Conservative Members may say that coal can be imported. We would be remarkably foolish if we were to lose our strategic advantage, to lose the skills which have been developed in the British mining industry and to become dependent upon the "COPEC" of the 1990s or the first years off the 21st century. Let us not take that route.
I was reassured when a Foreign Office Minister, in answer to a question last week, suggested to me that he would be encouraging Europe to buy our coal. Since we have to fund such a large part of the common agricultural policy, the request is not an extravagant one.
There have been changes in the industry. One of the most significant changes has been that younger men are now working down the pits. The average age has been reduced. We have heard about safety rates in the American pits. I believe that Mr. MacGregor is casting an eye on supervisory and management grades in the NCB.
I represent the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers. One of the principal grounds for pride in that association is that it has made a tremendous contribution to ensuring that our industry is safe. If we have a younger work force and if Mr. MacGregor decimates the supervisory staff—or worse—we might not be able to boast any longer that we have a

safe industry. That would be foolish, uneconomic and immoral. It would be foolish because we have a real international advantage. Today, man is scratching the earth's crust. He will have to go deeper and deeper for his mineral resources, and that presents an enormous opportunity for the British mining engineering equipment and technology industries. If we can demonstrate that we produce safe equipment and that our industry is successful and has a regard for human life, there will be a substantial international opportunity for us.
Many people who are interested in the industry are disturbed at the growing concern in Europe about acid rain. One cannot attend a meeting of any kind in Europe without hearing about this anxiety. The Government could demonstrate to Europe and to the world that they take that problem seriously. If the Government decide to act upon the Atkins report and to encourage British industry to develop fluidised bed combustion, and if they establish CHP and district heating systems, that would be a highly desirable form of capital expenditure. We would then be able to demonstrate to our neighbours that we are concerned about their problem, that we are doing something about it, and that Britain can maintain not only a modern and safe coal industry but modern and efficient coal use. If the Government did that, they would be able to look areas such as mine more squarely in the eye. That would compensate for the appalling industrial devastation that the Government have inflicted on constituencies such as the one that I am proud to represent.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: I apologise for not having attended the whole debate. I have been serving on the Standing Committee on the Housing and Building Control Bill. As soon as the Committee finished, I rushed down to the Chamber—I did not even have tea—to listen to the honeyed words of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Yesterday, with a number of other hon. Members representing coal mining constituencies in the midlands, I spent an hour with Mr. MacGregor. There is only one coal mine in my constituency, but there are also the main research establishments where work is being done on acid rain and other developments, the main test sites and a number of other major research units. We have the brainiest coal miners in the country. I suspect that we have the brainiest mining people in the world. They have had the sense to vote Conservative in the last five elections, and I intend to continue to represent them into the next century.
In the short-term, Mr. MacGregor's view was that we must close these Victorian holes in the ground as soon as possible. They are uneconomic, unpleasant and dangerous. Last December the Select Committee on Energy produced a report on pit closures which said:
There can be no doubt that the very high cost of this marginal and, at least in the short-term, surplus capacity, unfavourably distorts the coal industry's financial position, and imposes a considerable drain on public funds … to judge by their evidence to us, the NUM appear to believe that in order to maintain employment in mining, the industry should be encouraged and financed to produce as much coal as it possibly can, and that the country somehow has an obligation to find ways of consuming it." ——
and, one might add, ways of financing it. If the NCB does not have a hit list, it should have one, and the sooner it acts


on it and reduces the uncertainty about closures, which is so difficult to cope with. the better it will be for the industry.
In the medium term, Mr. MacGregor's view was very encouraging. He believes that the many marginally unprofitable pits could be brought up to profitability by considerable investment. I believe that my mine at Cadley Hill probably falls into that category. The south midlands area of the NCB made a loss of £27 million last year, of which £24 million came from three pits. The other pits in the midlands are carrying the burden of those three uneconomic pits, and the quicker that they are shut, the better. That £24 million could then be invested in the remaining pits so that we could take the coal economically.
In the long term, Mr. MacGregor's plan for coal is very exciting. It is that we must aim to replace oil by the year 2005 and at economic, competitive world prices. That will require a quite different approach to the small-mindedness and backward-looking views of Opposition Members. Indeed, I could only fault Mr. MacGregor on one thing; his habit of calling me "Lady". I took exception to that, but when I called him "Gentleman", he stopped it.
In my constituency there are many sheep. I do not mean miners, but real sheep on four legs. The other night I stayed to listen to the debate on sheep payments. That measure was not opposed, and I hope that Opposition Members will not oppose the Bill. Beneath the sheep there is a lot of grade two agricultural land, and beneath that their is a heck of a lot of some of the best coal in the world. It is perfect for electricity generation. The economy of my area means that it is well produced and has a considerable future.
The long-term approach to the coal industry should be quite different from that displayed by Opposition Members. We should be asking where the coal is, and how we can get it out. We should be asking how we can bring it to the surface with the latest technology, which is all British, and which involves industries operating in the midlands and the north. How can that be done? Let us not tie ourselves to the existing pits, some of which were sunk more than 100 years ago. Let us ensure that by the year 2005—when many of us will still be representing coal miners—the industry is as efficient as possible. The scale on which that could be achieved is astonishing. Those of us who visited the Selby coalfield with the all-party group on minerals, and who saw what can be done with an investment of £1,000 million in a top-class coalfield, and the way in which coal can be obtained for £17 per tonne all found, know that that must be the way of the future.
It takes about seven years from the point at which the decision is taken to the point at which coal is taken out of the ground. I have urged previous Ministers, as I urge the Government now, to take decisions soon about the Asfordby coalfield in Leicestershire, the Warwickshire coalfield based on Daw Mill and about the future development of the mine, which I regard in a personal fashion, at Cadley Hill in south Derbyshire. In that way we can ensure that as oil runs out in the 1990s there is coal to replace it. Otherwise, there may be shortages. I strongly believe that in that way the coal industry can have a rosy future.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on his return to the Back Benches—not that I do not think that he is not needed on the Front Bench—in that he has found once again his old powers of Back-Bench oratory which we all enjoy. All those who heard his speech will have enjoyed it.
The debate was interesting and enjoyable until the director of the Institute of Directors, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) came along and spoilt it, and then fled from the Chamber. Although the debate has been enjoyable and worthwhile, I think that we may be wasting our time. I wonder whether anyone has been listening to us. I also wonder whether the decision to scrap "Plan for Coal" has not already been taken.
In the press we read that Mr. MacGregor tries to rattle his sabre and talks about going to ballots and putting the increase in wages in the miners' pay packets. However, my advice to him, which comes from a lifetime of experience in the mining industry, is that he should keep his nose out of trade union affairs. If he does not do so, he will find that in taking on the miners he is taking on a heavier force than he attempted to take on when he was chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
There can be no doubt that the coal industry, not for the first time, is at a critical point in its history. The recession has had a devastating effect on British industry, with the result that total United Kingdom primary energy demand has fallen by more than 12 per cent. That has led to the old clamour for market forces. Some of the statements made by Mr. MacGregor and others have created an atmosphere of distrust in the mining industry. Unfortunately, I believe that some of those utterances come from Ministers who should have much more sense. We all know that not long ago the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was the Minister responsible for the mining industry. His speech has already been referred to at length, and I shall not go into it in detail. It shows that there is no doubt that the Government have plans to privatise the mining industry.
Last Thursday the Prime Minister went some way towards denying that there was a privatisation programme for the mines, but she did not rule out the fact that some parts of the industry might be privatised. If that is so, the Government are going down an unwise road. The mining industry is not an animal that is ready to be privatised. Even the younger men in it are well aware, from the teachings of their fathers, of what happened in the days of privatisation. I remember that, because I worked in the industry. I know the difference between the privatisation and the nationalisation of coal mines.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that the nationalised industries were nothing but a drain on the country's economy. We refute that. The Secretary of State for Energy is reported as having suggested that he is to open the floodgates for privatisation. If that is true, he owes it to the mining industry to come clean and tell us what the programme is. The longer the rumours continue about the number of pits, such as 40 or 60, and the number of men, the worse it will be for the industry. It will be completely soured. The miners want to know the truth. I hope that the Government will be prepared to give it to


them. Whatever actions the miners take to defend themselves and the industry are a matter for them, but they have a right to know the truth.
However, I am not hidebound by my general disapproval of the Government's attitude to the public sector. I recognise the continuing high capital investment in the industry, now about £750 million per annum. I welcome the Bill, which extends the NCB's borrowing powers to £6,000 million. Whether the ceiling is sufficient is a moot point, but I welcome the proposed extension. I also endorse the Government's renewed commitment to establish a coherent EC solid fuel policy, reported in the supplement to the Treasury's economic progress report of October 1983. I welcome the more strident stance taken by the Under-Secretary in Brussels recently on that important issue.
The EC market is a potential major outlet for United Kingdom coal. I fully support the Government in all measures that will facilitate the entry of the NCB into that market. The Commission expects coalburn, excluding that of the United Kingdom to increase to about 330 million tonnes per annum by the year 2000. United Kingdom coal could increase its share of the European market if the Community were to expand the resources available by input from the general Community budget. There have been recent welcome developments in that area, but they are only proposals and a political decision is needed to translate them into action. The Secretary of State for Energy is a supposed expert in dealing with EC matters. He should put his talents to use on behalf of the coal industry. However, I regret that tangible success has been thin on the ground so far. One or two potential markets should be vigorously pursued.
I was pleased to hear that the coal industry national consultative council had been informed at its meeting in October that the £50 million allocated by the Government for the grants scheme for the conversion of industrial boilers to coal had been taken up. It will produce an additional 2 million tonnes of coal sales. The council was also advised that there is potential for a further 2 million tonnes of coal, provided that the grants scheme can be extended beyond the end of the year. It is therefore essential that the Government allocate further money for this proposal not only because of the additional coalburn that it will provide but because of the cost effectiveness of the scheme.
Another important additional market in the short term, particularly for Scottish coal, would result from the conversion of Kilroot power station in Northern Ireland to the use of coal. Currently oil consumption in the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland is the equivalent of some 200 million tonnes of coal. This would be reduced substantially if Kilroot were to be converted to coal. The arguments for conversion are compelling and should not be constrained by making conversion dependent on the Northern Ireland budget. It is, however, a cause for concern that the matter has been deferred again until 1987.
In regard to the longer term, the liquefaction of coal presents a potential new market for coal. The lull in oil prices should be used as a breathing space to step up energy investment rather than as an excuse to relax and allow important decisions to be deferred. The process developed by the NCB's coal research establishment is

much more efficient than the liquefaction technology used in South Africa. The importance of this will become increasingly clear as we move to the time when the production of petroleum from coal becomes a viable proposition. Unless the Government take a more positive approach and stop insisting on a private sector partner, the already minuscule pilot plant at Point of Ayr is likely to be postponed indefinitely. This would be a tragedy. It would be a great mistake if the Government did not take action and put in sufficient investment.
In regard to the decision of the NCB to bring in a private consultancy firm, McKinsey and Company, to examine what management responsibility might best be devolved to areas, this is unwise. The British Association of Colliery Management will resist it with all the power at its disposal. I understand that that firm did a similar exercise in the steel industry and that its recommendations were a miserable failure.
Great play has been made of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I have not the time to go in depth into that report. Many hon. Members have used it to illustrate recommendations which are in line with Government thinking, but I stress one paragraph that says:
Where the social consequences of a decline in coal mining in a region would be particularly acute, it is for the Government to decide what action to take.
What action will the Government take if there are to be mass pit closures? In my time in the mining industry, both as a trade union official and a member of the industrial relations department, I lived through the days of Sir James Bowman stockpiling coal and through Robens' butcheries. I was in an office in the National Coal Board that was responsible for transferring workers up and down the country.
Things were difficult then, but the climate was different from what it is today. There were not the same mass redundancies and unemployment. We are reaching a stage where men aged 50 and over can expect in the next few years to be offered redundancy. I must be honest and say that so far the board has not had a difficult task in getting men of 60 and 55 to take redundancy. It is a fact of life that many miners of that age have been waiting for redundancy. They have sold their sons' jobs, but one can understand them. If I were still down that hole in the ground after 40 years, and someone dangled that gold in front of me and said that I need not go down the pit any more, it would be a great temptation. However, the Government are now talking about redundancies for men aged 50. In the early days, the system may be attractive, but I can tell the Government——

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a man aged 50 who has worked in the coal industry for all his life, assuming that he does not work until pensionable age, will take home a total benefit of about £30,000?

Mr. Lofthouse: Yes, but, although it is attractive in the early days, it is not so attractive when considered against the years during which he will have lost wages.
With respect to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), there is more to it than that. I, with many of my colleagues, live, play and work with miners. Some of those who have been made redundant have said to me after the first months, "This is the worst job we have ever had." They have known nothing but hard work, and they have not had many hours of play, because when they come out of the hole in the ground they are too tired to play.


They find it unpalatable that at a young age their work is ended and that there is no prospect that their sons will replace them.
I hope that the Government, while taking everything into consideration and not just the mark at the bottom of the balance sheet, will acknowledge that we must compete. We cannot continue to produce coal for ever if we do not use it. I believe that the production capacity of the NCB should be continued at 140 million to 150 million tonnes a year, with readily available reserves of another 50 million tonnes, until the year 2000. The Government would be very unwise not to pursue that course.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: One can understand and respect the deep commitment to and understanding of the coal industry shown by the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse), but tonight Parliament is once again being asked to approve a massive expansion of public funds for a nationalised industry. ft is one of many such demands that the House has had to meet during the past year. Parliament has an absolute right to examine the demand carefully and to decide with great caution whether it should approve an extension of funds to the NCB. It is not the Government's money that we are providing, but taxpayers' money, which could be used in other ways. If it were used to reduce the national insurance surcharge, that would create jobs in other industries. We could use it to meet our health needs, with which all hon. Members are concerned, or to meet the rising demands on defence expenditure if we are to have proper defence.
We need not spend the money. We could use it to reduce our massive borrowing, which would lower interest rates to industry and thus help to create jobs. Tonight we must remember that over the past decade thousands of millions of pounds have gone to tie NCB. That expenditure by itself has imposed a burden on jobs and production elsewhere. That is why the House has a duty to ensure that taxpayers' money, for which the House is primarily responsible, is spent as efficiently and as effectively as possible. That is a principle on which the House could unite.
I believe that the whole House recognises the importance of coal. There is not much dispute about our aims for coal. "Plan for Coal", which, nearly a decade ago, set out a substantial future for the coal industry, has had the support of successive Governments. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Members for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and for Pontefract and Castleford are too dismissive of the support of this Government and of the previous Government for the coal mines. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, that investment in coal has been substantially higher than that envisaged in "Plan for Coal". We cannot ignore that. The whole country is proud of the achievements of Selby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) pointed out. We are proud that the 20 most efficient pits produce their coal at a cost of £28 a tonne while the selling price is £40 a tonne. We are certainly proud of the technical skills that have been developed in the pits and the application of technology to mining. Such skill has been, and can be, exported around the world.
We are proud of our coal industry—its traditions and achievements—but at the same time we have a duty to recognise that there is a darker side to the industry. We must face that. It is not good that the 20 least economic

pits produce their coal at about £90 a tonne, losing £50 for every tonne produced. It is wrong that the worst 12 per cent. of pits make a loss of nearly £300 million a year. We should recall that in the past year about £650 million has gone from the taxpayer to the National Coal Board, which is not far short of 1p on income tax. We must remember that the taxpayer, not the Government, contributes that money. We are asking the taxpayer to support our coal industry.
It was sad to learn from the Secretary of State that in the past decade productivity has increased by less than 5 per cent. in total when "Plan for Coal", which all Governments have supported, envisaged—of course, in rosier times—an increase in productivity of 4 per cent. a year.
There is much to hope for in the coal industry, but it is fair to recognise that there is much to put right. If we are to approve the Bill tonight, as I believe we should we should be assured that the problems facing the industry will be tackled realistically. The House is right to demand that the current dispute about overtime and wage settlement should be settled moderately.
We also have a right to demand that we should at least tackle the problem of uneconomic pits. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South pointed out that there is a generous redundancy scheme that can give new hope and new perspectives to those miners who, unfortunately, must be made redundant, but, as Opposition Members said, many of them have chosen that course because they recognise the opportunity that is offered to them.
The Government must adopt a more imaginative approach to the productive future of the coal industry. It is fair for the taxpayer to ask, "What is wrong with putting private capital in the industry? Why is that evil?" For example, if an old mine is to be closed, is it not sensible to see whether someone with private capital is prepared to put money into it and to squeeze out the last reserves if that will save jobs in the area?

Mr. Jack Thompson: rose——

Mr. Carlisle: I shall not give way because several hon. Members are still anxious to take part in the debate.
Why should not developments—for example, Belvoir—be financed by private capital? Indeed, I believe that many miners would welcome the opportunity to participate on the financial side, and private finance could give them that opportunity.
I believe that the opportunity for exports has been underestimated. If we could control costs in the mining industry, then with the reserves, infrastructure and skills at our disposal we could increase exports by far more than the 7 million tonnes annually now going abroad.
I am willing to support the Bill to give extra help to the mining industry—a step that hon. Members in all parts of the House support—but I expect better results from now on. I want the Government to make efforts to get those results in a full-hearted, not half-hearted, manner.

Mr. Alec Woodall: By necessity, not intention, my remarks will be brief so as to allow other hon. Members an opportunity to speak, and I will speak only about clause 4. That provision increases the payments to redundant mine workers from £300 million to £1,200


million, an increase of 300 per cent. That is designed for one purpose only—to speed up pit closures, so making more miners redundant.
Several of my hon. Friends, in particular the hon. Members for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), spoke of the social consequences of closing collieries. Coal mines are not to be found in London, Birmingham, Glasgow or Liverpool. They are away from such areas and usually the coal mining communities are built near the collieries, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) said. When a pit is closed, the whole life of the area can be cut off, and usually it is the type of area that already suffers from high unemployment. When a pit is closed in that sort of area, devastation is the result.
I want Conservative Members to know exactly what happens when a pit is closed. Not only have I seen it happen, I have lived through it, but they have not had it spelt out to them in detail. I worked at what was called a gathering colliery for pits that were being closed in the late 1960s and early 1970s. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central is not in his place because he knows the areas about which I am speaking, such as Darton, New Lodge and Mapplewell.
The pits there were closed and the miners who lived in those areas were transferred to my colliery at south Kirkby. They were asked for their addresses, buses were then laid on—on contract because at that time the NCB did not own buses; it does now—and lists were given to the men showing the various picking up places where the buses would stop to take them to south Kirkby. On the day shift, the men from Mapplewell and New Lodge had to be on the corner of the street at 4.10 in the morning. That was the time at which they had to be picked up, enabling the buses to go round the estates of Barnsley so that the men could be down the pit at south Kirkby before 6 o'clock. That meant that by the time they got out of the pit they were away from home for at least 12 hours to work a shift. If, for any reason—accident, breakdown or whatever else—a miner did not get out of the pit on time, his mates were on the bus screaming, "Let's get off home," and he had another two or three hours added to his day away from home because he had to travel home by public transport.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that young miners have no need to fear, and for the NCB to say that there will be safe jobs in future. We are concerned about the jobs of young miners, but we are also concerned about potential miners. What young miner today who has had his pit closed and has had to transfer to another and travel miles to work until he acquires his own transport or packs in altogether will want such a life for his son?
By clause 4 the Government are making miners redundant, and as a result they will be in short supply. I remember what happened in 1974. After the oil crisis, pits became more popular and we wanted more coal. There was a nation-wide appeal for ex-miners to come back into the industry. They were offered generous resettlement money and, they were told, a secure job. Now, 10 years later, the Government are telling these people that they do not want them any more. They are being given a carrot of golden shekels, and are told to get on their way because they are not wanted any more.
If the Government start to close pits on a massive scale, as they intend, they should remember what happened and try to imagine what will happen in a few years when the 58 million tonnes of coal now in stock have gone, the pits have gone and there are no new developments or collieries for the new young miners who are now at school. Some of those young men are just entering the industry and they will marry and have sons to do the same.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) is right. It is all very well to dangle the carrot and offer the golden shekels to the miners to make them accept redundancy. They will accept them, and I can understand that. However, any man who has worked down a pit for 40 years should be given a generous pension and told, "Retire now, you've done your whack." They should not be tempted to leave the industry by a measure that is designed to run down the industry and will be to our detriment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said, it is vandalism of the industry, and it is doing the nation a great disservice.
The Government should be careful not to lose potential miners because, once they do, we shall never get them back. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) appealed to the Government Front Bench to take early decisions on the new developments in Leicestershire and Warwickshire. It is too late now to make the decision because the pits in Leicestershire and Warwickshire will be closed soon and once they are closed we shall never get the ex-miners back into the industry, no matter how much we try. I warn the Government not to sacrifice young miners and potential young miners for this expediency of closing the pits because they say that they are uneconomic.
Conservative Members may favour privatisation and want the sale of profitable subsidiaries. When a nationalised industry makes money, it invests it so that it can have money of its own instead of having to increase the borrowing requirements and the consequences that go with that. The Government had better think hard again about selling off the subsidiaries.

Mr. Michael McGuire: I remind the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) that in 1919 there was a Sankey commission, which recommended certain things. At that time, the coalmining industry was privately owned but we were still having to shovel money at it. The Sankey commission's conclusion was that the industry should be nationalised and that there should be a miners' charter. The miners have always had a public duty, and although after the war they could have pulled down the temple of nationalisation, it was this public awareness that some day they would reap their reward that meant that the miners did not enforce, as they could have done, the Sankey charter, which consisted of such points as a seven-hour day. Anybody who tries to put over this barmy notion about putting private money into certain projects in the industry will start up more trouble than they could anticipate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) said. I advise anybody who thinks like that to study the history of the British coal industry.
During the Secretary of State's speech I intervened to plead a point that my colleagues have made from time to time. Hon. Members who represent mining constituencies know of men who have worked in the industry for as long as 40 years. Only a fortnight ago, I visited a man who, I


believe, had worked for 41 years in the mining industry. He believed that he had pneumoconiosis. Paradoxically, this disease used to enable a man to claim special hardship and obtain the lighter jobs that were reserved for such men. This man was not able to obtain certification. He could not continue in the industry, but he had to earn a living. Because of his poor health, he intermittently worked outside the industry. Subsequently, he was certificated. In his bedroom he has oxygen containers, which he must use daily. The authorities have given him a bungalow. Because of the gap between his leaving the industry and being certificated, he cannot go to court to claim compensation. If we empathised with that man, we would be worried about him.
The Government, like the Labour Government, have introduced many good social measures that have helped the miners, especially by the tripartite agreement. I hope that money will be made available to these ex-miners. Not many people are affected, and many more widows than surviving ex-miners. It would be deeply appreciated if the Government recognised their plight.
I missed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie), who has had much experience in these matters. I believe that he has given distinguished service to our Front Bench in Government and in opposition. I have been entertained by him, in the past and have, indeed, tried to entertain him in previous coal debates, as, I hope, have others.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central, in a cogent speech delivered with skill and passion, warned the Government about what miners want to hear. The Secretary of State—I hope that he is doing so unwittingly—may, with Mr. MacGregor be encouraging the idea that they should pre-empt the constitution of the National Union of Mineworkers. Time and time again, Conservative Members, during a dispute in some other industry, have praised the miners for their constitutional provisions for strike ballots and the like. 'When there is an overtime ban, the mineworkers' constitution does not provide for an automatic referral to its members, as it does when strikes are proposed. Given the record and the solidarity of the mineworkers' union, it would be the height of folly to interfere to organise a ballot. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central was right. If that were done, the ranks would immediately close out of loyalty to the union. The men would be asked whether the Coal Board or the union makes the decision. The mineworkers' constitution provides for a 55 per cent. vote in favour before a strike can be held. The long history of mining has shown that this is a matter of life or death. The solidarity of the union is the spirit that moves its members.
There are already signs afoot that pressure will bring about, sooner rather than later, some attempt to test the temperature. Let matters develop in their own way. Mr. MacGregor should not take a straw poll, because I believe that the Secretary of State would regret it bitterly if the issue were forced. I urge him to say to Mr. MacGregor, "Hands off." The miners have sound union machinery, which has been long developed. It has been the unanimous wish of the coalfields, which have been consulted in the traditonal way, to take this action. They will make the decision to change. Anyone who seems to be interfering will bring down upon them the miners' wrath. Instead of being successfully settled as I hope, the dispute will be prolonged, to the miners' discomfiture. It will be a tragedy for the nation.
I end as I began by asking the Minister to look sympathetically at the subject of concessionary coal for the group of former miners that I have mentioned.

Mr. Tony Blair: My anxiety to speak is attributable not merely to the amount of time that I have been waiting but to the increasing concern that I have felt as I have listened to the way in which the debate has developed.
The starkness of the position that faces not just the NUM and the coal industry generally but people in my region particularly has been made clear in the speeches of Conservative Members. In 1947, when the coal industry was nationalised, there were about 201 pits in Durham and Northumberland and about 149,000 men employed in the industry. There are now about 20 pits employing about 27,000 men. However, the NCB is still the major employer in the north-east.
We are faced with the problem of whether that 27,000-strong industry will survive. The Government have an inconsistent attitude to the coal industry, the representatives of the NUM and Opposition Members. They heap opprobrium on our heads and call us scaremongers and exaggerators when we talk about the difficult problems that face the coal industry — the NCB's intention to close pits—but every speech that has come from Conservative Members has been redolent with phrases such as, "Let us have a hit list," "Why do we not close pits?" and "It is only a Victorian hole in the ground." and so on. Areas such as the one I represent face a cut in the coal industry.
The coded language is clear—whether in terms of peripheral pits as opposed to central block pits or economic pits as opposed to uneconomic pits—that one of the crucial issues presented during the debate is whether the peripheral pits have any future. There is a considerable body of opinion on the Conservative Benches and in the NCB that feels that they have no future and must be cut.
The Government attempt to present the issue as an inevitable economic position—something that is written in an economic fate from which the NUM cannot escape. We have heard a great deal about facing up to reality and the necessities of economic life.
The Opposition case is that there is no inevitable or inexorable fate that dictates that mines must close. It is a matter of political choice and judgment. The coal industry's restriction to an annual production of about 80 million tonnes, which is what Mr. MacGregor wants, and the cutting of the peripheral pits have nothing to do with economic inevitability but everything to do with deliberate political choice.
When we consider the political choices to be made, two factors appear in any sensible and objective examination of the coal industry. First, we must consider the extraordinary difficulties involved in predicting the demands made upon the total energy resources of the nation and the predicted energy consumption. "Plan for Coal" was published in 1974 because the attempt to meet short-term expediency demands was seen to be quite out of kilter with the true energy needs of the nation. The plan was an attempt to assess our future energy needs rather than leaving the problem to the short-term fluctuations of the market. Surely we must analyse the future of the coal industry in that spirit.
Secondly, in the context of the available sources of energy, especially gas and oil, a shortfall will occur in the next few years about which a decision must be taken. At present we have the gas energy equivalent of about 70 million to 80 million tonnes of coal and about 114 million tonnes of oil. In the next few years those sources will dry up or diminish considerably. We shall be faced with either importing the energy, with all that that means for the indigenous industry and our balance of payments, or taking a long-term view now and planning ahead to meet that crisis by expanding the coal industry.
I urge the House not to allow subsidies to obscure the real argument of coal as an energy source in the future. The heartwarming factor in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was his challenge to the Government on their basic thesis towards the coal industry. We have a simple choice to make about coal. We either restrict the industry in the way in which Mr. MacGregor wishes, which would be incapable of meeting an increased demand as it arises, or we take a long-term view and expand coal production to meet the energy requirements as they arise.
When Conservative Members refer to subsidies, one would think that the coal industry was the only industry which received a subsidy, or that subsidies were invented by the National Union of Mineworkers and never saw the light of day until the Government came to office. The truth is that there is nothing odd about subsidising an industry. To proceed in such a way is sensible.
The subsidy given to agriculture is massively greater than that given to the coal mining industry but we do not hear a murmur from Conservative Members about that. If we accept the figures given in the NCB's 1983–84 report, the subsidy for the north-east coal mines is about £60 million to £70 million. That figure is nowhere near the equivalent cost of putting 27,000 people out of work. The social cost of cutting back the industry in the manner contemplated by the Government easily outweighs the cost of any subsidy. To use a subsidy is a perfectly sensible way to organise the coal industry in my constituency. The issue affecting constituencies such as mine is not just that of providing coal as a source of energy or jobs but the future of entire communities which have grown up and exist in and around the mines. When the National Coal Board is the major employer of labour in such areas and the mining industry contracts, the communities are bereft of life. Although about 2,500 miners live in my constituency, it is full of disused pits. The work which was supposed to have come to my constituency has not arrived. What is at stake is a sensible energy policy for the future and the livelihoods of many people working in many communities. I hope that the Government take account of that.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: First, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) on his maiden speech. It was most interesting in that he did not identify himself with some of the harder lines that we have heard today. He talked about the story of Robin Hood and Sherwood forest. In the summer I read a book by Professor J. C. Holt who said that Robin Hood did not even exist.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not peddle myths in the House. We hope that he will contribute to our debates on many occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) made the best speech of the debate. I share his passionate commitment to the industry. Having been brought up in a mining community and representing a mining community, one understands the arguments and the issues.
I wish that I could have complimented the Secretary of State even on having attended most of the debate, but he was absent for more than four hours. He opened the debate, listened to a speech or two and then left. I have been a Member of Parliament since 1966 and I know that it is not usual for a Minister to behave in that way. Had he stayed, he would have learnt more about the industry than he appears to know. It is no use the right hon. Gentleman shrugging his shoulders. We are justified in complaining about his absence. Had he remained, he would have heard about the deep concern of communities which fear another round of accelerated pit closures. As many of us know, that means closing not just pits but communities. Anything that happens to the pits of south Wales, the north-east or Scotland happens to the entire community.
Had the Secretary of State stayed to listen, he would have been shocked at what he heard. We now understand that the future of our miners lies not in staying in Scotland or in Wales but, as the Scottish press now shows, in advertisements for colliery electricians in South Africa. That, apparently, is the future offered to many young miners who may be thrown on to the scrap heap by further accelerated pit closures.
It is no use the Secretary of State issuing dire warnings to Financial Times conferences about the future of the Government and saying:
We do not think the Tories should go into another election with jobless figures at the present level.
He should make his comments here in the House where it matters and where hon. Members of all parties can ask questions. Let him stand up now in the presence of Members from communities worried about jobs and even more worried about the problems facing the mining industry.
Had the Secretary of State stayed, he would have heard the challenge made to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) that he should clear the air about privatisation now—not with the glib response that he made when he was first challenged about the Financial Secretary's speech but by telling the House that he does not believe in privatisation of coal production and that that is no part of his policy or the Government's. Let him clear the air today. If myths and unreal anxieties are growing in the mining areas, he is the best person to allay those anxieties and puncture those myths. Otherwise they will grow. That is the problem.
In his opening speech the Secretary of State made no reference to the growing anxiety in the industry. He opened a debate on coal industry finances with a most curious speech in which he scarcely mentioned the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. Yet the shadow of that report hangs over the mining communities, arousing new worries about a further programme of accelerated pit closures. The extraordinary thing is that the Secretary of State did not refer to that report. His answer is typical of a Government who answer only through


written answers. Just before the summer recess, the Secretary of State gave his view of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report.
Apparently the Secretary of State—who has not attended most of the debate—is not prepared to listen even now. He knows that a deputation, of which I was a member, saw him before the summer recess to express the anxieties of coal mining communities about the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report and about what may happen to those communities if there is an accelerated pit closure programme. At that meeting, the right hon. Gentleman referred to a memorandum that he was preparing for the Cabinet. It dealt with the future of the coal industry. Has he prepared it yet? Has it been submitted to the Cabinet? If so, what conclusions has the Cabinet made? When can we expect a statement on the future of the coal industry from the Secretary of State? I am not referring to the type of speech that the right hon. Gentleman made today.

Mr. Peter Walker: It was an extensive statement.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman did not make an extensive statement today.

Mr. Walker: Rubbish. I made an extensive statement on behalf of a Government who have invested much more in the coal industry than did the Labour Government.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman made no real statement about the future of the coal industry. He made no effort to allay the anxieties that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report has created. Where does the right hon. Gentleman stand on the commission's recommendations? Why is he laughing at that?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd.

Mr. Rowlands: It is an extremely serious point, as the report has cast a new shadow on the industry—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
In a written answer the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Government also agree with the MMC's central conclusion." —[Official Report, 28 July 1983; Vol. 46, c.523.
I shall remind the House of that conclusion. It was that we should remove 10 million tonnes of capacity from the deep-mined coal industry. The report identified the means of achieving the removal of that 10 million tonnes of capacity as lying with the 70 top loss-making pits in British coalfields. It did not suggest 20 or 30 pits but a massive 70. It is perfectly reasonable for people who are told that the Secretary of State supports the central conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report to be worried when they read it. Will the Secretary of State now say that he supports the proposition that 10 million tonnes of capacity should be taken out of the British coalfields and that that involves 70 pits?

Mr. Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman still agree with the two Labour party statements on the coal industry of 1974 and 1977 which say that between 3 million and 4 million tonnes of capacity should be taken out each year?

Mr. Rowlands: Perhaps I may ask the right hon. Gentleman a simple question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In each year since 1974, 2 million tonnes of capacity have been taken out. Since the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report, 18 pits have been closed.

Mr. Walker: Answer.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman should answer my question. Does he support the report's central conclusion? Does he agree with his predecessor——

Mr. Walker: Answer my question.

Mr. Rowlands: The right hon. Gentleman should answer this question. In February 1981, the Secretary of State's predecessor came to the Dispatch Box and rightly withdrew an accelerated pit closure programme. Does the right hon. Gentleman support his predecessor's decision? The right hon. Gentleman and others, who say that miners are Luddites, should realise that there are 500,000 fewer miners in the industry than there were in 1947.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that community after community has accepted closures where there is development. We say that there must be development alongside change. We have never refused to accept change. Mining is one of the most remarkable industries, and it has accepted considerable change. My hon. Friends know how many changes there have been and how many pits have been closed. Indeed, Conservative Members repeatedly say that there have been pit closures. Of course there have. We have accepted change on a scale that is almost unprecedented in any other industry, and we are not prepared to listen to lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and others.
We ask the Secretary of State again, "Do you support the central conclusion of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report which suggests that during the next couple of years—or whenever it is to be—10 per cent. of capacity has to be taken out?" That is the commission's recommendation, and it will affect pits with losses of more than £10 a tonne. That means 70 pits.
Let me give an illustration of what that means. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) gave the list. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what it means for south Wales. It would mean that, under that criterion, 24 of the 33 pits in the 1981–82 list would go. It would take out nearly half the anthracite production of this country. Two of the major pits would be closed. It is nonsense, and we know it is nonsense, so why does not the right hon. Gentleman reject it? Why did he not say this afternoon that he does not support accelerated pit closures? Does the right hon. Gentleman support an accelerated pit closure programme? We do not. We reject it utterly, just as it was rightly rejected in 1981 by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

Mr. Eggar: The hon. Gentleman has told us that his party rejects accelerated pit closures. Will he confirm that his party is now reneging on the clear commitment that was made in "Plan for Coal" for pit closures of 3 million to 4 million tonnes a year?

Mr. Rowlands: As the report shows, the worlds of 1973 and 1983 are utterly different worlds. We do not support an accelerated pit closure programme, as proposed in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—nor did the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor.

Mr. Peter Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the present Government have kept up the investment programme of "Plan for Coal"? Will he admit that investment by this Government has been better than that of the Government that he supported? Will he further admit that, in what he has just said, he has now scrapped "Plan for Coal"?

Mr. Rowlands: We rightly welcome investment, but most of it was laid down in our period of government. Investment under "Plan for Coal" was started in our period, and this Government have continued it. We welcome that. However, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said that we cannot have pit closure programmes of this scale and size in our present economic situation.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Minister who is responsible, whether he supports an accelerated pit closure programme of the size that is proposed in the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report. Will he answer that question?

Mr. Walker: It is bogus.

Mr. Rowlands: It is not bogus. That is the shadow that has been cast over our coalfields. As a result of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report—the right hon. Gentleman endorsed it in a written answer—we shall see another accelerated pit closure programme. Does the right hon. Gentleman support that or not? We shall certainly not support such an accelerated pit closure programme. We do not beleve that the Government have any idea of what they will do about it. We need not less investment, but more. We need more investment in anthracite. We need more investment to open up new coalfields such as Margam. We will then be able to accommodate the problems of closures in the south Wales coalfield.
Where there has been investment, there has been increasing productivity. I represent pits in which there has been some investment. Their productivity has rocketed. They have been breaking production records. We are entitled to demand that the Government should tell us that they do not inend to embark on another accelerated pit closure programme, as proposed in the commission's report.
Does the right hon. Gentleman support the pit closure programme that would be the automatic consequence of this document? If he does not, he has an opportunity now to dispel the fears in the mining communities in all our areas. In social and economic terms, in terms of jobs and employment, we fear what the consequences would be. It is within the Minister's power to say that, on the contrary, the Government will recognise the potential for development of the biggest and most successful coalfield in Europe, and the coalfield with the lowest cost per tonne in Europe. We want to know whether the Government intend to support the industry.
We do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We will investigate the Bill more closely in Committee. We want to know whether there will be support for the boiler conversion programme, which the right hon. Gentleman has not mentioned. We want to know whether opportunities to open new coking fields in Margam and elsewhere will be taken. These are not questions for the NCB alone. They are questions for the Government too, because the consequences of not taking these steps would be visited on local authorities and central Government and on our communities.
When the Under-Secretary replies, I hope that he will tell us whether the Government support the potentially dramatic changes suggested in the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We believe that the industry has tremendous potential. We believe that, given

the backing of a Government who will turn their back on the nonsense of reducing options by premature pit closures, the industry will in the future befit the nation's needs.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): First, I join Labour Members in paying tribute to the excellent maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart). It came as no surprise to me that the hon. Member representing that constituency should decide to make his maiden speech in this debate. I congratulate him on what he said and on the manner in which, clearly, he will take an active interest in the major industry in his constituency.
When I was at Gedling colliery recently, which I suspect is in my hon. Friend's constituency, I heard men speak extremely highly of the interest my hon. Friend was taking in the colliery.
I should also like to pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). My predecessor came to know him well and had a warm regard for him. It was typical of the hon. Gentleman that he also extended his courtesy to me in my brief but pleasurable acquaintance with him. His robust performance from the Back Benches today demonstrated that he has lost none of his tremendous fire and enthusiasm for the industry that he loves so well, and has served with such distinction for so long.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) sat down amidst a welter of accusations and counter-accusations. It is not usually my style to do battle with him about this or any other issue, but I should remind the House what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a written answer on 28 July:
The commission found that the NCB is facing two central problems, which are closely related: over-capacity and the high cost of a number of pits in which coal production has become uneconomic. The commission did not attempt to define precisely the way in which the NCB should reduce excess capacity in high cost collieries, acknowledging that that is for the board to define and take the necessary action." — [Official Report, 28 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 523.]
Although I understand the deep anxiety of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney about potential closures, particularly in south Wales, the facts are now so clear that successive chairmen—not just Mr. MacGregor, but Sir Norman Siddall before him—have actively discussed, within the industry and outside it, how to tackle the problems. I am glad to note that this Bill will not be opposed. That does not surprise me one bit, given that £6 billion is being made available in borrowing limits. However, it is vital to argue the case in a way that bears some relation to the facts. Hon. Members should not say that they are all in favour of progress as long as it does not mean change. That philosophy is not worthy of the industry or of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have its interests at heart.
The debate has been wide-ranging and more balanced than other debates. Since May 1979 the Conservative Benches have had a number of worthy representatives from coal mining areas. Debates on coal mining are now, certainly, cross-party affairs—[Interruption.] For example, my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) and for Sherwood all spoke from their intimate knowledge of their constituencies' mining problems, as


did my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). That is very worthy. Opposition Members do not have a monopoly of interest or knowledge in these matters.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister comment on the remark of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) that if Mr. MacGregor did not have a hit list, he certainly should have one?

Mr. Shaw: Mr. MacGregor is entitled to have many things. I have little doubt that he will take advice from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South. However. I am sure that he is capable of making up his own mind. having taken soundings within the industry.
The right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) mentioned investment levels. The Bill provides for a very high borrowing limit. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, in recent times the investment levels have been about £800 million per annum, or £2 million per day. The right hon. Gentleman said that that was much less than in some other parts of the Community, but it is three tunes the amount invested in West Germany and 20 times the amount invested in France. It is substantially greater than the sums for other comparable European countries. However, I take the point that there are methods of subsidy other than investment. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Perhaps one could provide investment on the scale that the right hon. Gentleman wants, but if there were subsidy plus investment, we would be unable to make that provision.
Let us also be clear about interest rates. The board's total deficit financing will provide cover for its interest charges. With that level of deficit grant, the board can cover the interest charges. There is no case, purely on interest rates, for a capital restructuring of the board, which is another matter that was raised by Opposition Members. We must recognise that there is high investment. It is not possible to have a similar and comparable level of subsidy. We have a high deficit financing that carries the board through its high interest charges.
Privatisation was mentioned by the right hon. Members for Salford, East and for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason). I make it clear that when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that there was no natural monopoly in the production of coal or of many other things, he was not suggesting that there was an immediate prospect of, or plan for, the privatisation or selling of pits. There is no such plan. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, there is no plan for the privatisation of pits. There has been, and is, a plan for the disposal, where possible, of ancillary businesses associated with the NCB. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that has been the board's policy for years. There is nothing new in that.

Mr. Skeet: It is possible to run a private mine with 30 people in it. Does my hon. Friend propose to extend that to about 100 people?

Mr. Shaw: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend asked that question. I pay tribute to the fact that about 100 private mining companies produce about 1 million tonnes of coal, many under contract to certain power stations. I make it clear that that is not the issue raised by the right hon. Members for Barnsley, Central and for Salford, East.

If clearing the air is required, I hope that the right hon. Members and the Opposition will accept that there is no plan to sell the pits.
Opposition Members also referred to Point of Ayr and liquefaction. It would be rare if the hon. Member for Midlothian did not refer to it. I am aware that there have been recent discussions with Mr. MacGregor and that he made a statement about it. The 2.5 tonnes per day coal liquefaction pilot plant at Point of Ayr in Clwyd is on target. Progress is being made. Hon. Members expressed concern at the statement by Mr. MacGregor early last month that he would need to take time to make a proper assessment of the viability and future of the project. I assure hon. Members that the basis of that assessment will be the report on the current programme of work, involving the detailed costing, design and proper specification of the pilot plant. The programme began in April this year and should be completed in about mid-1984. An announcement on the appointment of the design support contractor is expected shortly.
Hon. Members have also been concerned about the funding of £1 million. It is being shared by the Department of Energy and the NCB and is not conditional on Community or private sector support for the project. I give that assurance to hon. Members who raised the matter.
Many hon. Members referred to the conversion grant scheme. I recognise that they believe in it and consider that it is making an important contribution. We agree about that. About 2 million tonnes of additional coal burn has been identified during the two years that the scheme has been in operation. The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) wondered whether the percentage grant could be extended, and whether the scheme could be extended to the public sector. It is run by the Department of Trade and Industry, not by the Department of Energy. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having urgent discussions and we have been examining the scheme. We hope that the correct decision will be made in due course. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are working on it.
With regard to the extension of the percentage grant, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 25 per cent. is the limit currently in force. He asked whether the limit could be raised from 25 per cent. Possibly the average grant has not reached that level, but the limit is currently at that level. With regard to extension to the public sector, the scheme is under the Industry Act 1972, and that Act precludes assistance to public sector schemes. I very much regret that that cannot be done.
Some hon. Members expressed concern about coal imports. I fully understand that concern, but the House must always bear in mind that 95 per cent. of our coal requirements are supplied by British coal, so we are talking about a very small proportion. That volume has been getting substantially smaller in the last three years. It was 7·3 million tonnes in 1980, 4·3 million in 1981 and 4 million in 1982. In certain instances fuel shortages of one sort and another have made it inevitable that prime quality coking coal and anthracite should find their way into the market by imports, but I stress that it is a small percentage of the total coal take and I hope hon. Members will not consider it a serious threat to the viability of the industry.
The redundant mineworkers payment scheme is a major provision in the Bill. Provision for it is increased from £300 million, at which it was introduced two years ago, to £1·2 billion. This has raised a great deal of contention


on both sides of the House. Some hon. Members argued that it is far too generous, and I regret that it was described by one hon. Member as a glorified death grant. At the time of its introduction the scheme was warmly welcomed by the industry as probably the most effective and generous scheme that could be designed.
Let me try to disabuse the House of one belief, which the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) expressed with some force. The sum of £1·2 billion in the Bill is not and cannot be interpreted as an absolute number of persons leaving the industry, as it were, a targeted figure. Indeed, when the Bill becomes effective, about two thirds of the money will be used for payments to those who have become redundant before 1 April 1984. As hon. Members know, there is a weekly payment of a kind under the scheme and it is a commitment until the miner reaches pensionable age. Those payments constitute a major requirement for about two thirds of the £1·2 billion provided in the Bill. Therefore, hon. Members can recognise that the scheme is not a hidden measure, but a major commitment to the costs of redundancy in the industry. The fact that the increase in the amount required is of this order is a reflection of the current rates of redundancy and also of the changes introduced to the scheme earlier in the year. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will understand that.
The Flowers report, or the CENE report as I used to know it, was referred to by the hon. Member for Easington. I yield to no one in my determination to see that that report is carried through, as he would expect from my previous background. There has been much progress within the industry on its discussion. For example, opencast planning procedures will be transferred on a transitional basis to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment probably from 1 January. As the hon. Member for Easington knows, working studies have been initiated on spoil disposal. I hope that we will keep faith with the major recommendations to which he ascribes such importance.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) always gives the House an extremely frank view of affairs, and with his 35 years experience in mining he is entitled to do that. However, I hope that he will, on reflection, accept that the propositions in the Bill are not a preparation to sell off the industry.

Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that, and I ask the Minister to take it back.

Mr. Shaw: I shall not take anything back from the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that I noted down the remark——

Mr. Haynes: I will see the hon. Gentleman after.

Mr. Shaw: —shows the hon. Gentleman how confusing he can be when he starts to speak on this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) has made a major contribution to coal debates for a long time. He was right to lay stress on the international price of coal, on the height of stocks and on the fact that the overall commitment of expenditure in the industry has topped the £7 billion mark. Those are the significant underlying reasons why we must examine the

industry on a factual, not an emotional, basis. I welcome the cool clarity that he brought to the proceedings at that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) said that he was no longer responsible for the constituency in which the Point of Ayr liquefaction plant is established. He also laid stress upon the EC dimension. I realise that the Community can make an important contribution to the restructuring of the coal industry, and discussions continuing in its energy committee are encouraging in that regard. I understand the passionate concern of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the unemployment that will be caused in some constituencies—his might be one—but we must consider whether we can continue to make provision for the entire range of costs that are incurred in mining, and he will know much better than I that changes can bring benefits if we apply them in as many pits as we can.
The main issues before us were best summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude), who talked about the cost of extraction versus the price that can be obtained in the market. The industry must grapple with that basic fact. I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that, taking a production value of about £40 a tonne, about 47 million tonnes are currently being sold on the right side of the line, which is at market rate or above. However, 32 million tonnes are below that line, but are close to being brought into the profitable sector. While the debate has been largely concerned with closures, we must allow the industry to examine afresh the prospects of moving a large part of its output into the productive and profitable price sector.

Mr. Orme: That means closures.

Mr. Shaw: That does not mean closures. It means improved efficiency, better methods, better management and a reduction in overheads. It can be achieved, and the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if those 32 million tonnes could be brought on the right side of the line and were profitable, there would be a major reversal in the capacity of the industry to pay its way.
I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman that although the Bill provides for only two years, that does not mean that the job must be completed within two years. Another Bill will follow this one, no doubt with further provision. The borrowing limits have been raised to £6 billion, and the provision for redundancy and other payments has been increased to £1·2 billion, and it is clear that there can be a major improvement in the profitability of coal produced, but what really matters is to be able to sell the coal that we produce to people who are willing to buy. We cannot do that when world prices have dropped to a point where United Kingdom deep-mined coal is significantly less competitive than other coal. The Bill provides a commitment that the Government will continue to support the industry with huge public investment and with a vast deficit on the understanding that we shall have a more viable industry in a few years' time. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Coal Industry Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

Increase of borrowing limits

1. Any payment out of the National Loans Fund, the Consolidated Fund or money provided by Parliament resulting from increasing to £5,500 million, with power to increase by order to £6,000 million, the limit on borrowing by the National Coal Board.

Deficit grants

2. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

(a) providing for the period in respect of which grants may be made under section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1980 (grants in respect of group deficits) to be the financial years of the Board ending in March 1984, 1985 and 1986; and
(b) imposing a limit of £1,200 million, with power to increase it by order to £2,000 million, on the aggregate amount of such grants.

Grants in connection with pit closures

3. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

(a) extending the period in respect of which grants may be made under section 6 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (grants in connection with pit closures) to cover the financial years of the Board ending March 1985 and 1986; and
(b) increasing to £400 million the limit on the aggregate amount of such grants.

Redundant workers

4. Any increase in payments out of money provided by Parliament resulting from—

(a) extending the qualifying period for payments under a scheme under section 7 of the Coal Industry Act 1977 (payments to redundant workers) until 29th March 1986; and
(b) Increasing to £1,200 million the limit on the aggregate amount of such payments during an extended period covering the financial years of the Board ending in March 1985 and 1986.

Receipts

5. Payments in to the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund. —[Mr. Moore.]

Mr. Bob Clay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer to events that have taken place in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster tonight in relation to section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act. A large number of people have been gathered outside the building tonight and a large number of people have been carried away by the police and, I believe, arrested. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether an Act which was designed to protect the right of Members to have free access to the House should be abused in the way that it has been by the Metropolitan police tonight. I stood with the demonstrators for three quarters of an hour and then I heard the senior police officer say to his men via a loudspeaker system that a warning had been given on four occasions that the people within the police circle should now be arrested. I stood there myself for three quarters of an hour and I did not hear one warning given before the
police started to arrest hundreds of people.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must warn the hon. Gentleman, who is new to the House, that we are about to embark on a debate on a prayer which must end at 11.30 pm, so he is taking time out of that.

Mr. Clay: I greatly respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I shall try to be extremely brief. The only other point that I wish to make is that, after this took place, and people who were standing on the pavement were being moved on, police constables were instructed not to move them on but to arrest them. That was clearly heard on two occasions. Is it in order that, at a time when the peace of the world is being threatened by cruise missiles, people should be prevented by the behaviour of the police from making their views clear to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Robert Parry: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House will have heard on a number of occasions this evening Conservative Members shouting "Rubbish". May I suggest that Conservative Members are causing more trouble and are antagonising——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain that that is a point of order for me. I did not hear "Rubbish".

Mr. Parry: The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who should declare an interest on matters of security, last week stated that the people who are protesting at Greenham common are involved in a conspiracy and would be shot by their own——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is a matter for us tonight.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be brief because I do not wish to delay the House. I and a number of Conservative Members were present when the police were performing their duty. I should like to put it on the record that I have never seen an operation performed so well and so competently. It ensured that people were able to get to the House and that the public outside were able to travel.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was also outside the House and witnessed what occurred. I must say that the police behaved absolutely impeccably——

Mr. Clay: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the warning?

Mr. MacKay: I also heard the warning because I was outside. I was fearful that certain Members, such as the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), would be there and might distort what happened. The police behaved impeccably. I, like many other hon. Members and taxpayers, am concerned about the cost of this operation. I should like once more to commend the police for the excellent job that they did.

Mr. Speaker: I have had a report from the Serjeant at Arms that the Carriage Gates were closed between 6.50 and 7.45 pm. I remind the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) and others who have raised this matter that on 22 June the House passed a Sessional Order that contained these words:
That the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis do take care that during the Session of Parliament the passages through the streets leading to this House be kept free and open and that no obstruction be permitted to hinder the passage of Members to and from this House."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 38.]

Orders of the Day — Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1215), dated 26th July 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th August, be annulled.—[Mr. Norman Hogg.]

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: The motion standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends relates to regulations that have arisen as a result of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill that was passed at the end of the last Parliament. I was not involved in that piece of education legislation because I was engaged in a similar exercise with the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1983, though in many respects the procedures that were entered into for the speedy passage of both measures were similar.
The undertakings that were given by the Minister at that time, the present Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on the Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Act, were of a rather different nature from the undertakings that were then given by the present Under-Secretary for the Environment. I choose my words carefully when I say that the latter Minister has had his undertakings reneged upon by his successors. Indeed, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Leader of the House said that the hon. Gentleman was right
in suggesting that these regulations do not carry out a commitment given during the passage of the parent Bill before the dissolution. —[Official Report, 1 November 1983, Vol 47, c. 829.]
That, basically, is the complaint that my hon. Friends and I have about the regulations—that the undertakings given by the Government during the passage of the parent legislation have not been carried out in the way that we were led to expect. In particular we had a promise that a group of overseas students would be given special consideration in that their case would be considered by the authorities in respect of their ability to remain as students and enjoy the benefits and privileges that are associated with residency of the United Kingdom.
As the result of a judgment made on 16 December last by Lord Scarman and others, there was a change in the definition of what we have come to regard as normal residency. The change came as something of a surprise to all who took an interest in these matters and it was agreed on both sides that the gap in the law which resulted from that change had to be filled. Consequently, the parent legislation was not in essence a matter of contention among the parties in the House; the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, was as active on the subject as my former colleague, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, who unfortunately is no longer with us in the House and who at that time represented Derby, North.
The point made at the time was that there should be included in the legislation an amendment to take account of the situation of persons taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government. That meant people who had been forced to leave their country of origin or to stay away from it as a result of internal political changes. The peoples who had been considered in this category were Poles, Afghans,

Ugandans and Iranians. Now, as well these four national groups there are the Tamils, who suffer from the difficulties in Sri Lanka. It was assumed that these individuals would be able to enjoy the privileges which normal residence would afford and that that facility would be given under the exceptional rule category.
The position of these groups has been changed by the regulations, while it is true that they may still be accorded certain benefits in the form of reduced fees or enhanced awards such as grants. When the regulations are applied in Scotland, it will be at the discretion of the colleges concerned, without any likelihood of central Government financial support. The position is slightly different from that prevailing in England and Wales as the majority of colleges in Scotland are what are known as central institutions, which are directly funded by the Secretary of State and the Scottish education department. Therefore, it would be possible for the Secretary of State to make available the funds, if he so desired. The position that prevails in England and Wales and in respect of that part of Scotland covered by the other humble Address that we debated some two weeks ago, will be different from that in the rest of Scotland. In Scotland, apart from one or two of the local authority further education colleges offering, in the main, advanced courses, we are considering what I have already referred to as central institution, which come under the direct control of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We are concerned about the reneging on the undertakings given in Committee before the Bill was passed. This changed attitude will force the burden of resonsibility on to institutions that at present are being starved of funds and that in many instances do not have the counselling services that many of the universities about which we debated in the previous humble Address have at their disposal. For local authorities, the burden of responsibility will fall on the education committees. With the best will in the world, most of the local authority education committees in Scotland will consider as a relatively low priority the protection of the interests of these individuals.
The consequences of the inadequacy of the funds, of the difficulties with the counselling of overseas students in smaller colleges and the likelihood of a low priority being given to this by education committees because of financial constraints mean that the prospects for the students concerned will be uncertain. It is likely that there will be inactivity in that the students will not be able to pursue their studies. Instead of receiving funds to pursue their studies, we shall have the ridiculous circumstances in which they will receive supplementary benefit, which will probably be adequate to cover their basic needs but insufficient to enable them to continue with their studies.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about the low priority that this will have for local authorities. In fairness to the local authorities, does he not agree that this will come about because the authorities' budgets are already severely cut, that there will be a further reduction in the applied funds, and that they will be in a position that is even more difficult than their already bad one?

Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I thought that I had made it already. I appreciate what he meant. The local authorities are


already encumbered by a variety of commitments. With the best will in the world, the education sub-committees will put this item at the end of their agendas when a determination must be made. This will probably occur after the available funds have been expended.
During the discussions on the order for English, Welsh and Scottish universities, the Minister put forward a case which, to say the least, did not impress the House. I hope that his colleague in the Scottish Office has had an opportunity to reflect on the scheme's inadequacy, to improve upon it and to change his mind. Hope springs eternal in the House.
We are looking for a change. We are not impressed by the excuses that were advanced by the hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), who is the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he said that the amendment had not been clear when it was discussed in Standing Committee because it had been tabled on Friday 6 May and debated on Tuesday 10 May. The departmental officials had only had four days in which to consider the amendment. The Bill passed through the House in three or four days, and one would have imagined that the Department's attentions could have been extended at least to subparagraph (c) of this fairly insubstantial amendment. On that occasion, we heard the somewhat convoluted words that were presented as the defence:
Persons who are taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government."—[Official Report, I November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 829.]
According to the Under-Secretary and the Department of Education and Science, these words have no precise meaning in law. Confusion may be caused by the problems that arose when dealing with the status of Vietnamese refugees. There appears to be some confusion in the minds of officers of the Department of Education and Science on the difference between those seeking political asylum and those seeking refugee status. It has been argued that refugee status cannot be taken but can only be granted. Therefore, the use of the word "taking" in subparagraph (c) has no meaning.
There is something sadly wrong with Ministers if they seek to defend their inability to implement what they regard as bad law because they do not like the amendments that they accepted when they were in Opposition. I hope that the Minister can come up with something better than the feeble excuses advanced by his colleague.
The Government have had months to reflect, and they could have accepted the responsibility which this perhaps ill-drawn amendment imposes. We believe that there is a strong moral and legal responsibility on the Government within these regulations care for a group of people who, through no fault of their own, have come to this country and who are dependent on its largesse and generosity for their studies and welfare. We hope that at some stage many of these groups can return to their countries and enjoy the same freedoms that they enjoy here. They will return to their countries with a healthy respect for this legislature and the British system of government. For them to do that, it is necessary for the Government to meet their responsibilities.
I make no apology for raising this matter a second time, but we believe that the Scottish higher and further education system has a long and distinguished record of support for students from disadvantaged parts of the world.

There is a long and distinguished record of contact through the missionary work of the Church of Scotland and other organisations to bring such students to this country. Scotland has an educational centre which affords an opportunity to people from all over the world to come here, occasionally as political refugees. We feel these regulations are a feeble effort by the Government to provide such people with this country's help and support when they are in severe difficulties and when their education should not be interfered with and interrupted.
For those reasons, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join in rejecting the regulations and suggesting to the Government that they try again to get it right and to do the right thing by the rest of the world which looks to them for support on such issues.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the purpose of these regulations, although, as the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neil) said. the policy underlying them was debated by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen during the passage of the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill in May and in two prayers against statutory instruments since then—one on 1 November, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and one in Committee in July, in which we both took part.
As hon. Members will realise, these regulations and others in the awards field are necessary if the position is to be returned to that which was understood by successive Governments. The hon. Gentleman confirmed that there is no difference of principle on that point between the Government and the Opposition.
There is a long-standing policy of treating overseas students differently from home students. The key test for a student was whether he was ordinarily resident in this country, and successive Governments applied what was, in fact, a "real home" test. Last December's House of Lords judgment, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, widened the interpretation of "ordinary residence" to an extent inconsistent with the Government's intentions. The consequences were serious and would have been costly if no action had been taken.
The position of the Scottish Education Department's awards scheme was restored by amendments to existing regulations, but for fees and those awards not covered by amendments to regulations, the Education (Fees and Awards) Act 1983 was necessary, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. I am happy to acknowledge that it was passed with the co-operation of all parties just before the Dissolution and received the Royal Assent on 13 May. I acknowledge the support received by hon. Members on both sides of the House for what was recognised as a most necessary piece of correcting legislation.
The Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 permits the charging of higher fees to overseas students by educational establishments in Scotland other than universities. Scottish universities, as hon. Members are aware, are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Mr. John Maxton: Shame.

Mr. Stewart: They are covered by fees and awards regulations made by him, which were the subject of debate on 1 November.
The Scottish regulations have otherwise in their fees provisions the same effects as the English regulations. If the regulations had not been made the charging of fees to overseas students at levels higher than those charged to home students could have put institutions at risk of legal action for discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976.
Under previous rules higher fees for overseas students were permitted in pursuance of arrangements approved by Minister of Crown in accordance with section 41 (2) of that Act. With the "ordinary residence" judgment the previous legal framework was reviewed, and it was decided that regulations made under a separate fees and awards Act provided a more appropriate statutory basis.
The Scottish regulations differ from the English regulations in their coverage of student awards. Awards for advanced courses are, in Scotland, as hon. Members will be aware, administered centrally by the Scottish Education Department under discretionary powers exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Amendments to deal with the question of "ordinary residence" were made earlier this year in separate regulations and were debated on 21 July. Further minor amendments, including provisions to deal with access by European Community migrant workers to awards at vocational training establishments, are contained in regulations which, hon. Members will be interested to know, were laid before the House on 31 October.
Awards for non-advanced courses are administered in Scotland by the regional authorities on a discretionary basis within a framework of regulations made by my right hon. Friend. Amendments to these regulations which deal with ordinary residence and certain other related matters were also laid before the House on 31 October.
The awards provisions in the Education (Fees and Awards) (Scotland) Regulations 1983 therefore refer to a very minor postgraduate studentship scheme administered by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and covering no more than a handful of awards annually. They are included in these regulations because they are not covered by the powers under which the main scheme of student awards is drafted.

Mr. Maxton: I do not think that the explanation about part III was as full as some hon. Members would have wished. Can the Minister expand on that? I am not clear about the specific provision which seeks to discriminate against English, Welsh, Northern Irish and overseas students—[Interruption.] That is my reading of it. I hope that the Minister will explain it in more detail.

Mr. Stewart: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the reason that these awards are in this regulation is because they are made under paragraphs contained in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911.
I have already stated that the provisions on fees reflect provisions made in respect of England and Wales.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I wish to assist the Minister, as my hon. Friend has referred to part III and amendments to section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. I have taken the precaution of arming myself with section 4 of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1911. Section 4 refers to the constitution of the board of agriculture for Scotland, which so far as I know no longer exists.

Mr. Stewart: The postgraduate awards to which we refer are given under the provisions of that Act and not under the education Acts under which the other awards are given. They are covered in the previous regulations which were discussed by the Standing Committee.

Mr. Home Robertson: They are not—that is the problem.

Mr. O'Neill: Can the Minister say how many times, in the intervening period since the original discretionary awards regulations were passed in the summer, he has used his discretion in respect of such individuals? The Secretary of State has the opportunity to exercise his discretion in respect of awards for people who fall into this category. On how many occasions has he done so since then?

Mr. Stewart: No particular case has been brought to my attention since the regulations were passed.
As I have said, the provisions on fees reflect provisions made in respect of England and Wales which cover the Scottish universities. It may be helpful, however, if I explain them in a little detail. Needless to say, I regard it as important that there should be no policy divergence between Scotland and England in the matter of overseas students.
The provisions on fees are contained in part II and schedule 1. The key points are regulations 6 and 7. The regulations are necessary because of the House of Lords judgment which meant that the legal protection afforded by successive Secretaries of State to institutions charging fees under section 41(2) of the Race Relations Act was not adequate. The regulations ensure that students cannot become eligible for home fee status when they have been here wholly or mainly for the purpose of receiving full-time education. That is the meaning of regulation 6 which establishes the criterion of "relevant connection" with the United Kingdom. Students affected by these provisions are those attending full-time or sandwich courses provided by a central institution, a college of education or other further education establishment.
Home fee status is not, however, restricted to students whose "relevant connection" with the United Kingdom is established under regulation 6. Various categories of excepted student are defined in schedule 1. Nationals of member states of the European Community and their children have home fee status if they satisfy ordinary residence requirements in relation to the European Community similar to those laid down in regulation 6.
Refugees, their children and spouses are also excepted students. I remind hon. Members that in their treatment of refugees the regulations are the same as those debated earlier this month. The hon. Member for Clackmannan will recognise that the matter was fully debated in the House on 1 November when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science explained the position in relation to the commitment given when the Education (Fees and Awards) Bill was debated in Committee. There is little to add to what he said as there is no particular Scottish dimension to the question. The Government's policy on immigration and refugees is administered on a United Kingdom basis and regulations which impinge on that policy must reflect that. As my hon. Friend told the House, and as the hon. Member for Clackmannan repeated today, when the Bill was debated in Committee an undertaking was given to extend home fee status to a category described as


persons taking refuge in the United Kingdom in pursuance of a decision by Her Majesty's Government".
That commitment was given in good faith, but it was not clear at the time that it was meant to extend home fee status to all those allowed to remain in this country outside the immigration rules. As my hon. Friend explained, and as I believe the hon. Member for Clackmannan accepted, the form of words used has no precise meaning in law. Even if it had, it remains very difficult to prescribe in regulations for every circumstance that might arise. That is a familiar problem with regulations of this kind. The circumstances of individuals given what is described as exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom—the amendment did not specify that category—are often very different. When the implications were fully understood it was concluded that the issues involved were too complex and varied to be resolved in time for the 1983–84 academic year and the need for the regulations was urgent. Nor does the lack of specific provision mean that nobody in that category can benefit from a lower level of fees.
Institutions continue to have power to remit fees under regulation 3. The hon. Member for Clackmannan asked about financial resources. The short answer in relation to central institutions and colleges of education is that finance will effectively be provided by the Scottish Education Council because a college's grant takes account of its income estimates. They should include overseas student fee income. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
As to local authorities, the hon. Member for Clackmannan is aware that rate support grant is given as a global sum. The hon. Member spoke at some length on that point, but in another important respect—the treatment of newly arrived immigrants—the regulations go further than the undertaking that was given during the passage of the Bill. That is the answer to some of the generalised points that the hon. Gentleman made about my hon. Friend's undertaking.
I do not doubt that hon. Members will appreciate that the concession is not limited to the children of such immigrants, as originally intended. It now benefits wives and spouses. I am glad to acknowledge that there is a Scottish dimension to that concession in that it was initiated by my Department following discussions with the Scottish Council for Racial Equality, which raised the issue of newly arrived immigrant wives who would, without the concession, have had to pay overseas student charges to pursue English language courses. I hope that the House will welcome that.

Mr. O'Neill: I welcome the concession that the Minister has just announced. On his earlier point, however, will he confirm that no student at a Scottish central institution will be denied a reduction in fees if he or she applies, given that the funding is along the lines which the Minister suggested earlier?

Mr. Stewart: That is not the case as the hon. Gentleman is referring to circumstances in which the central institution or college of education has discretion and can exercise its own judgment.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I have already given way about six times, but as the hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State I shall give way. However, it must be the last time that I do so.

Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister. Of course discretion lies with the local authority but the Minister appeared to say that if a central institution exercises that discretion in favour of a student and gives him home fee status, no financial penalty will be imposed on the institution. Is that so?

Mr. Stewart: I notice that the hon. Gentleman is not a believer in devolution when it comes to Front Bench responsibility. As to his question, as I have said, a college's grant takes account of its income estimates. They should include overseas student fee income estimates.

Mr. Dewar: Am I right?

Mr. Stewart: Another exception to the rule that home fee status can be granted only to those who satisfy the ordinary residence regulations is students who fail the test only because of their temporary employment abroad or that of their parents or spouse. That and the other exceptions that I have described are fair and defensible. I trust that hon. Members will recognise that. Although the regulations provide that institutions shall be able to charge higher fees to students who are not eligible for home fee status, the scale of fees which should be charged is not laid down.
This is a departure from previous practice and responds to one of the proposals in the report "A Policy for Overseas Students" drawn up by the Overseas Students' Trust in May 1982. The trust recommended that there should be more flexibility in the level of fees charged by institutions, so that the differences in the costs incurred by individual establishments or classes of establishment would be reflected in the fees that a student had to pay. The Government accepted that suggestion, and no minimum level of fee will be prescribed. Within the overall policy framework, institutions will therefore be able to charge economic fees which reflect their own cost levels.
Part III and schedule 2 relate to the scheme for a limited number of agricultural postgraduate studentships. The background to that scheme was discussed earlier in the debate.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. Gentleman has no idea what it is all about.

Mr. Stewart: I hope that hon. Members will have found my explanation helpful.

Mr. Maxton: We understand it better than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stewart: The regulations are less complicated than their English equivalent, even though they reflect the same policy, because their awards coverage is much less. They are, in the Government's view, necessary measures. That being so, I commend the regulations to the House and ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to resist the Opposition's prayer.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Minister has given an interesting explanation of the regulations, which I believe that he would rather not have had to defend in the House. There is no doubt that the Government have


reneged on a commitment. There are people in this country whom, before the election, the Government were prepared to support in education, and whom they are now not prepared to support. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) has said, an undertaking was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and others before the election, and the regulations are now taking something away. On my calculation of the number of applicants with whom the Minister might have to deal in a full year, based on a World University Service estimate, the sum involved would have been less than £50,000. That is the amount at issue in Scotland. To pursue such a vindictive line for such a small amount of money is not worthy of the Government. The sum is not worth the breaking of the pledge given before the election.

Mr. Clement Freud: The Government's pledges are not worth much.

Mr. Bruce: No, and this one is worth less than most.
The Minister says that the institutions have discretion and can decide that they will allow domestic student status. He knows, however, that the financial constraints under which most of the institutions operate would not allow them easily to make such a concession. He knows that if that discretion was used, there could be considerable anomalies. As was suggested last week, if a brother and sister applied to two institutions, one might qualify and the other might not.
The Government claim that we need national policies—that is why local government must not be allowed discretion—yet the educational institutions are to have discretion. I suggest that the Minister is prepared to make that concession only in order to get himself off an embarrassing hook.
It is Government policy to allow some people to enter the country. They are dispossessed people who have had to leave countries such as Iran and Palestine and to seek refuge here. It is absurd that they can be allowed, or forced, to live off social security benefit, but be denied the right to pursue the education that they will need to find their way in the world and—if they are to stay in the country for any length of time—to contribute to the economy. The Government are apparently prepared to allow the people to stay here but to deny them the education that would allow them to be more useful to the country, and which would also be an asset to them. They are prepared to do that all for the sake of a maximum of £50,000 per annum in Scotland. This legislation is very petty minded indeed.
The legislation is in furtherance of a policy that the Government started four and a half, or five, years ago, which involved cutting our tradition of educating overseas students. We were once proud of that tradition, but we should now be thoroughly ashamed of it after five years of Conservative rule. Institutions whose overseas students once accounted for 15 per cent. are now down to 4 or 5 per cent. Only the rich can afford to pay the fees that the Government require.
The Government are now picking on a small category of people whom they previously insisted that they would provide for. Not even those few people will be able to benefit from domestic student status. I think that when asked the Minister told the hon. Member for Clackmannan

that he had not had an application for such an award since the election. However, I have a constituent who might have fallen into that category had he not had the good fortune to be granted citizenship. He would have been denied eligibility but for his good fortune to obtain that citizenship. However, although he has been resident in the country for seven years, has citizenship, and has been married to a British subject for two and half years, he has been told that he is not eligible for a grant to pursue his studies. That is applying the anomaly one step further back. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the regulations apply to grants as well as to overseas students' fees.
The Minister has not convinced us that there is any justification in introducing petty-minded, vindictive, regulations that involve only a paltry sum of money. If the Government's honour is worth only £50,000 in Scotland, they must be pretty shameless. If you are going to put your honour on the line, I would have thought that £50,000 was a rather cheap price to pay. Perhaps that is your own choice—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have no choice in this matter.

Mr. Bruce: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should have said that, if the Government want to put their honour on the line, one would have thought that they would have attached a higher price to it than less than £50,000. In the circumstances, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the regulations.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I shall be brief. I simply want to refer to a point that has been drawn to the attention of the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton). I refer to part III of the regulations, which is singularly obscure. As far as I can judge from the regulations and the Act that they seek to amend, they will amend the powers of a board that is no longer in existence. The Minister should tell us a little more about the effect of that part of the regulations.
If the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will excuse me for saying so, this legislation is nationalism at its worst. These regulations seem to say that no grant will be paid from the Secretary of State's funds towards the expenses of a postgraduate course at a Scottish university that are incurred by an English or Welsh student, even after he or she has done three years at a Scottish university. Where are such people to find funds? Will they obtain grants from the Department of Education and Science? What about retaliation? Many Scottish students of agriculture take postgraduate courses in English universities. What on earth is wrong with that? Will the Department of Education and Science operate a retaliatory scheme, or will the Minister pay grants to cover the costs of Scottish students who go to university in England and Wales, if the Secretary of State for Education and Science were to retaliate? I have the distinct impression that the Minister does not understand that part of what he is doing. That came across when he introduced the regulations.
The regulations are unnecessarily narrow, restrictive and unfair. They invite retaliation and could cause genuine problems for postgraduate students of agriculture.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I was surprised to see the Prayer on the Order Paper. It would be churlish not to recognise the way in which Her Majesty's loyal Opposition helped the passage of the primary legislation.
The regulations are entirely in the spirit of that legislation. I could understand it if the Government had introduced regulations that provided for. matters that were not handled in the primary legislation. It seems that the only thing that the re-creation of the Lib Lab pact has done tonight is to complain that the Government have not put in the regulations matters that were not put in the primary legislation. That is a ridiculous basis on which to found a Prayer.
I was astounded to hear, at the end of a long speech to make a small point, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) inviting his right hon. and hon. Friends, and those in the Liberal party, to vote in support of the Prayer. The Government have behaved entirely honourably and rationally. All the matters provided for in the primary legislation had no other purpose than to recreate the conditions after a legal judgment that everyone understood existed before.
The speech by my hon. Friend the Minister was the one good spot in the debate. He clearly and succinctly explained what the regulations are to some Opposition Members who do not seem to understand them.

Mr. Allan Stewart: With the leave of the House, I shall speak again briefly.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Henderson), who said that the justification for the Prayer is only a tiny point. Hon. Members who spoke, including the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), did not deal with the simple fact that the phraseology in the amendment under question has no legal basis. That is a key question. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science has said that he will keep the matter under review. He told the House of his meeting with the British Refugee Council on that point. His position is perfectly understandable and acceptable.
I do not know where the hon. Member for Gordon got his estimate of £50,000. I note it. If it has any basis in fact, perhaps the hon. Member will let me know his source. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) —

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stewart: I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for East Lothian asked about postgraduate agricultural studentships and whether there was discrimination. The regulations deal with Scotland in the same way as the English regulations deal with England. English students get their grants from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes 84, Noes 173.

Division No. 68]
[10 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Beith, A. J.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Barron, Kevin
Bermingham, Gerald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Blair, Anthony





Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Marek, Dr John


Bruce, Malcolm
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ian
Martin, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cohen, Harry
Michie, William


Conlan, Bernard
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Cowans, Harry
O'Brien, William


Craigen, J. M.
O'Neill, Martin


Dalyell, Tam
Parry, Robert


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dixon, Donald
Prescott, John


Dormand, Jack
Randall, Stuart


Douglas, Dick
Redmond, M.


Eadie, Alex
Robertson, George


Eastham, Ken
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Ewing, Harry
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Forrester, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Foster, Derek
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Freud, Clement
Snape, Peter


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hardy, Peter
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Home Robertson, John
Stott, Roger


Howells, Geraint
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Loyden, Edward
Wareing, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Welsh, Michael


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
White, James


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



McTaggart, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Norman Hogg.


Madden, Max





NOES


Ancram, Michael
Hawksley, Warren


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hayes, J.


Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)
Hayward, Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bellingham, Henry
Heddle, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Henderson, Barry


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hickmet, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hicks, Robert


Burt, Alistair
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Butcher, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Michael


Conway, Derek
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Cope, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Crouch, David
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunter, Andrew


Dover, Denshore
Jessel, Toby


Dykes, Hugh
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Fallon, Michael
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Farr, John
Key, Robert


Favell, Anthony
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Knowles, Michael


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Knox, David


Franks, Cecil
Lang, Ian


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Lawler, Geoffrey


Freeman, Roger
Lee, John (Pendle)


Gale, Roger
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Galley, Roy
Lightbown, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Lilley, Peter


Gorst, John
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Gregory, Conal
Lord, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Luce, Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Lyell, Nicholas


Hargreaves, Kenneth
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)






MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Maclean, David John.
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Major, John
Silvester, Fred


Malins, Humfrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Malone, Gerald
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maples, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marlow, Antony
Speller, Tony


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spencer, D.


Mates, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mather, Carol
Stanbrook, Ivor


Maude, Francis
Steen, Anthony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mellor, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Merchant, Piers
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Sumberg, David


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Terlezki, Stefan


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thorne, Neil (Word S)


Murphy, Christopher
Thornton, Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Newton, Tony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Oppenheim, Philip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ottaway, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Page, John (Harrow W)
Waddington, David


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Walden, George


Pollock, Alexander
Waller, Gary


Porter, Barry
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Powley, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitfield, John


Raffan, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Rhodes James, Robert
Wolfson, Mark


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wood, Timothy


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew



Ryder, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. Michael Neubert.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Contraception (Under-age Girls)

Mr. Roger Freeman: I have the honour to beg leave to present a petition on behalf of Mr. Donald Jones of Linden Avenue, Kettering, and 698 other residents of Kettering. The petitioners draw the attention of the House to their opposition to section G of the revised Health Service notice issued by the Department of Health and Social Security in 1980. I heartily endorse the views of the petitioners.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Margaret Livesey

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Mr. Stan Thorne: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for the opportunity to put before the House the case of Margaret Livesey, presently serving life imprisonment for the murder of her 14-year-old son which I do not believe she committed.
Early in 1982 I received a series of anonymous letters regarding this case. One such letter arose from the author's concern about a debate taking place at about that time on capital punishment. He had, he claimed, an open mind on the subject until February 1979. It was what he described as a miscarriage of justice in the Livesey case that decided him on that issue. He also drew my attention to the opinion of a chief psychiatrist who was working at that time at Risley remand centre, who had declared himslf convinced of Margaret Livesey's innocence, and several other factors, such as the evidence of two women, Norris and Warren, to which I shall refer later.
I determined to see Mrs. Livesey in Durham prison and paid a visit there on Tuesday 13 April 1982. Obviously I made a subjective assessment, and decided that she was most likely innocent of the murder of her son. Following this, I visited the scene of the crime, the crescent in which she and her family had lived, and spoke to several neighbours and the husband of Margaret Livesey, who still lives not far from the area but in a different home. Finding new evidence that could be submitted to the Home Secretary was beyond my resources, so I turned to Tom Sargent, the then director of Justice, for assistance in this case. What happened thereafter has been the subject of a BBC television programme, "Rough Justice". I hope that the Minister, if he has not seen the programme already, will make a point of seeing it in the near future.
Having read a transcript of the trial which culminated in the guilty verdict and sentence of July 1979, and having considered the evidence produced by the "Rough Justice" team of researchers, I am more than ever convinced that this case requires a new official investigation.
I am aware that Tom Sargent, to whom we all owe a considerable debt, made a submission to the Minister of State on 9 November in which he presented several documents urging a reappraisal of the case. I do not wish to spell out precisely what was in those submissions, but I wish to emphasise certain crucial questions.
The fixing of the time of the murder with absolute certainty is difficult, as it is in most such cases. That is why forensic evidence becomes vital. Professor Cameron, a highly reputable authority on forensic science, has concluded that the time of death was in the region of 10 pm based on all the evidence regarding food digestion and rigor mortis, particularly in relation to the eyelids, which Margaret Livesey had attempted, but failed, to close later that evening.
When interviewed, Professor Cameron made several statements which would have assisted the jury to reach a different verdict had they had access to them, and I hope that the Minister will study Professor Cameron's evidence particularly carefully. It is doubtful from his evidence that the murder weapon as produced at the trial was in fact the weapon used, because of the absence of blood, which could not, in his opinion, have been completely wiped or


washed away. There is also the suggestion of a homosexual element in the murder which unfortunately does not appear to have been fully investigated by the police.
I return to the time element. If Professor Cameron's view that 10 pm is a likely time is right—and we assume a margin of error of half an hour on either side—we are considering the period 9.30 pm to 10.30 pm, and not 11 pm which the police appeared to have fixed as the time of death.
During that period—9.30 pm to 11 pm—on the day of the murder, Mrs. Livesey's movements are well known. She left her home at about 8.50 pm and went to the Queen's Hotel, Bamber Bridge, where she was joined by two friends, both of whom state that the time of leaving the pub was 10.50 pm. Following a chat in the car park, Mr. Bamber drove her home and he fixed the time of her leaving the car in the crescent, where she resided and where the murder took place, at 11 pm
Since the trial another witness, John Kershaw, has been interviewed; he saw Mrs. Livesey in the crescent at 11 o'clock. Mr. Kershaw, who had been visiting a friend in Leyland and left there at 10.50 pm, was able to fix the time exactly, and, from his evidence, Mrs. Livesey is placed near a lamp post just past the entrance to the crescent, as I say, at 11 pm. Mr. Kershaw's evidence was ignored by the prosecution and unfortunately he did not give evidence at the trial.
Another witness, Mrs. Matthews, said at the trial that Mrs. Livesey knocked on her door at 11 pm or 11.15 pm, but she has subsequently revealed that it was 11 pm and she had said that it was 11 pm in her original statements to the police. This was pointed out by the defence at the trial but apparently ignored by the jury.
The evidence at the trial given by Susan Warren and Christine Norris is clearly in need of re-examination in the light of the contradictions produced during the "Rough Justice" researches. Were they activated by malice when they made their statements in court, statements that had clearly been changed? Was there an assumption by Mrs. Warren that she needed to protect Peter Nightingale from police suspicion? He had been held by them for several hours for questioning. Peter Nightingale it was who at 10.5 pm heard a noise emanating from the Livesey house and saw what he described as a young man, about 5ft 10ins with white blondish hair which bounced at the back of his head, wearing an anorak, walking down the garden path of the Livesey home. The time was fixed clearly by "News at Ten", which Nightingale had heard start at his friend's home, five minutes walk away, as he left.
It would be possible to go on referring to the material produced in the film made by the the BBC and to refer particularly, because I rate their views as highly important and relevant, to the points made by Lord Salmon and Professor Cameron. Instead I shall place on record a summary of the main issues in the case. I refer first to the matters that have contributed to Mrs Livesey's conviction, such as her alleged confession—a confession not written by Mrs Livesey, and the publicity given to it in her first trial. Next, there is the evidence of Susan Warren and Christine Norris of her shouting at her son, and their blackening of her character. There is the devaluation by the trial judge of the vital evidence of Peter Nightingale, to which I have already referred, and consequently of the noises heard by both Susan Warren and her gentleman friend Ronald Mason at 9.55 pm. The failure of the trial

judge to mention to the jury the defence counsel's submissions that Alan's killing and the circumstances surrounding it implied that it had followed a torture session, the failure of the prosecution to serve on the defence statements taken from Mrs Rogers and John Kershaw, and the failure of the police to provide the defence with full information about the cigarette packets found in the room and to test the cigarette stubs in the room for saliva, are all important points that contributed to Mrs Livesey's conviction.
On the other hand, there are matters that point to Mrs Livesey's innocence. When on 23 February, she gave the police a detailed time schedule of her movements the previous night, she could not have known whether they would be confirmed by six prosecution witnesses. There was strong evidence that Alan had entertained a visitor after his mother had left the home, from the sounds heard after 9.55 pm, the evidence of Peter Nightingale. the presence in the room of three packets of cigarettes, and Alan's change of clothing back into his cadet's uniform and boots.
There were strong signs that the wounds were the result of a homosexual torture session, I refer the Minister to the opinions expressed by Professor Cameron and Lord Salmon in this regard. The only possible time that Mrs Livesey could have committed the murder and done what she was alleged to have done was around 10.45 pm, by which time she could not have arrived at the crescent unless Frank Bamber and Marion Walker, and to a lesser degree, Miss Jones were lying, which was not suggested at any time. The knot around Alan's wrists was far too complicated for Mrs Livesey to have tied it and the nicks in the sock around Alan's neck showed it had been there during the stabbing. Professor Cameron's opinion, based on the stomach contents and the degree of rigor mortis, was that death had taken place between 9.30 and 10.30, and, as I have already said, Mrs. Livesey's movements during that period are clear and beyond question.
We should consider Mrs. Livesey's inability to close Alan's eyes because of the rigor mortis, the absence of any forensic evidence linking her with the killing and the evidence that, on her arrival at the Matthews' house, she seemed to be normal and there were no signs of blood on her clothes. Mrs. Livesey was advised that, as the jury must have accepted the confession as genuine, there was no point in appealing. She wanted to appeal, but thought that she could not because she had had two trials. I am sure that the Under-Secretary is aware that the first trial was terminated because a juror had a serious domestic problem.
Mrs. Livesey eventually applied for leave to appeal out of time. I do not know anything about its contents or how it was received. It can be fairly urged that very few, if any, of the matters that I have dealt with have been considered by the Court of Appeal and that there is sufficient new material to justify a reference to the court.
I request the Under-Secretary to submit the Livesey case to the Court of Appeal unless, following his examination of the case in detail—which I am sure will happen—he reaches a firm conclusion that she ought to be released forthwith. I shall be glad to hear the Under-Secretary's comments, and I hope for his co-operation.

Mr. Robert Atkins: With permission, I register an interest because, following the Boundary


Commission changes, I now represent the area in which this tragic case occurred. I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) on the clarity with which he raised this issue, and I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary has to say because this matter now affects me as much as it affects the hon. Member for Preston.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) said about the case of Margaret Livesey, and I note the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins).
It would be helpful first if I explained the functions of the Home Secretary in cases in which it is suggested that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. While it may be familiar, it forms the essential background against which we have to consider this particular case, and therefore it bears repetition.
Constitutionally, the duty of administering justice in individual criminal cases lies with the courts. The decision whether to convict is taken by a jury, and the accused person's normal remedy, where it is suggested that the conviction was wrong, is to go to the Court of Appeal. It is to take account of the possibility that points may emerge which suggest that the conviction was wrong but which are not capable of being considered in the normal way, that the Home Secretary is given certain powers to intervene—either by recommending the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy or by referring the case to the Court of Appeal under section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. This allows very exceptional cases to be dealt with by whatever means are appropriate and the powers are therefore very wide in their scope. In their practical operation, however, it is essential that selectivity and discretion should be applied. Otherwise, as I am sure the House will recognise, there is a danger that the Home Secretary will simply usurp the functions of the courts. This means, for example, that the Home Secretary will not normally consider recommending the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy in a case that is capable of being referred to the Court of Appeal. It also means that the Home Secretary will consider taking action only if some new and material consideration comes to light that has not already been looked at by the courts.
The Home Secretary will not recommend the award of a free pardon on the basis of facts or arguments already considered by the courts, nor will he refer a case to the Court of Appeal simply so as to require it to, as it were, have another go at a case which it is said to have got wrong. It would be quite wrong for the Home Secretary's powers of intervention to be used merely because, if the decision had rested with him, he might have taken a different view of the facts. He must therefore be satisfied that there is new material which goes to the heart of the matters on which the conviction was based; and when an application is made to him he must carefully differentiate between those pieces of evidence which are genuinely new and those which are mere restatements of points made when the courts were considering the case. He need not necessarily be satisfied, before referring a case to the Court of Appeal, that the new evidence is overwhelming; but he will want to be satisfied that it is relevant and cogent

in the sense, for example, of not being contradicted by other, undeniably more persuasive, evidence. I shall deal with Mrs. Livesey's case against that background. As the hon. Gentleman has told us, Mrs. Livesey was convicted at the Crown Court at Preston on 25 July 1979 of the murder of her son Alan, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. She subsequently applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against her conviction. Her application was refused on 17 September 1980 by a single judge empowered to consider such applications. She did not renew her application to the full Court of Appeal.
On 22 February 1979, the day of the boy's death, following an evening spent with friends, Mrs. Livesey was given a lift home. According to her third and final statement to the police, immediately upon her return home an argument started between her and her son, and shortly afterwards she picked up a kitchen knife and stabbed him. She then left the house and went to the house of a friend—a Mrs. Matthews. Alan's body was found later that evening by Mrs. Matthews' son, Leslie, who had gone to the house at Mrs. Livesey's request. Alan had been stabbed 10 times in the face, neck and chest and his hands were tied behind his back. There was a sock around his neck and the gas taps were turned on. The police were summoned to the house at 11.28 pm. A pathologist put the time of Alan's death at about 11.10 pm but said that it could have occurred within one hour either way.
The basis of the prosecution case, therefore, seems to have been Mrs. Livesey's statement and the evidence of her two next-door neighbours who said that they had heard her arguing with Alan at around 10.30 to 10.50 pm. In giving evidence before the jury, Mrs. Livesey denied that she killed her son and said that she "couldn't remember" having admitted to the police that she had done so. She said that she had made the statement in the first place only because the police were "going on" at her. She said she had left the public house at 10.50 pm., had been given a lift to the corner of the road, and had gone straight to Mrs. Matthews' house. She said that she did not go to her own house until Leslie Matthews returned and told her that Alan was dead.
Mrs. Livesey has now served a little over four years of her life sentence. Let us be clear that during this time she has not petitioned the Home Secretary about the circumstances of her conviction. Nor, until the BBC took the matter up, were any representations received on her behalf at the Home Office. I now know that the hon. Member for Preston has been involved with the case from early in 1982. The first occasion upon which doubts about her conviction were brought to the notice of the Home Office was through the recent television programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred and which I have seen. This is not, therefore, a case in which it can be suggested that the Home Office is being slow to take action to investigate a possible wrongful conviction. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that.
I watched the television programme with interest, as I have watched all the programmes in the new "Rough Justice" series. My right hon. and learned Friend and I are, of course, every bit as anxious as anyone else that any cogent suggestion that a wrongful conviction has occurred should be properly looked into.
A little while before the programme was broadcast, but after we had received notice of it, the producer was asked by the Home Office to let us have any new and material evidence which suggested that a wrongful conviction had


occurred so that it could be carefully examined. The BBC has not sent us its material, but last Wednesday, 9 November written representations on behalf of Mrs. Livesey were sent to us from the organisation Justice, with which the BBC collaborated in the series. These representations are commendably clear and comprehensive. They appear to cover, and in some respects helpfully to expand upon, the points made in the television programme. The hon. Gentleman has obviously had the advantage, as he made clear, of seeing Justice's representations.
I hope that the House will accept that we have not been able to examine, thoroughly and conclusively, the representations in the very few days since we received them. I am therefore not able today to say whether my right hon. and learned Friend will conclude that it is right to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. But the hon. Gentleman is fully entitled to know our first reaction and how we intend to reach a conclusion, and I can offer him and the House some significant assistance this evening.
The first step now must be to see what is new and what, of that, is relevant in the representations that we have received. That is, of course, entirely the normal procedure. Where we find that new points are raised which

might go to the heart of the conviction, my right hon. and learned Friend will normally instigate a police investigation into these matters. In this case, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is apparent that the representations newly received merit a fresh police investigation, and that is how we intend to proceed.
As for who should carry' out the investigation, I am, of course, aware that one of the central issues is the reliability of the admissions that Mrs. Livesey made to the police. I have therefore reached the view, without in any way prejudging the merits, that it would be right in these circumstances to have the inquiries made by police officers from a different force. We have discussed all that with the chief constable of Lancashire, who is wholly content to proceed in that way.
I hope that those steps will commend themselves to the hon. Gentleman and to the House. Once the police report is received, my right hon. and learned Friend and I can then properly consider the case as a whole and determine what should be done in the best interests of justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.